quote:

ORIGINAL: Level
If they did legalize harder drugs (and I'm not at all convinced that's a good idea), I would want harsh sentences for anyone harming anyone else while high.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


Unh, you have legalize it period, and legalize it for personal use only.

What would constitute "impersonal" use?

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
I think I have to disagree, Level and DS.
To me, it's tantamount to "hate crimes" legislation.
If I get high (and I don't) and I smash you on the head and bust your skull, does it matter that I was high? I don't think so. What matters is that I busted your skull.
But, here's where the rub is: We would have to "re-think" the whole diminished capacity defense. To my mind, that would no longer be a mitigating circumstance. Your dumb ass chose to get high, your dumb ass can deal with the ramifications of what you do, while you're high (this includes alcohol, also, by the way).
That's where we're going to run into some interesting times (even if it's just marijuana that gets legalized).
Peace and comfort,
Michael

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

It wouldn't be that the penalty would be for being high and doing something, it would be for the something with an additional penalty for being high while doing it. It would be like the increased penalty for committing a heist with a gun compared to not using a gun.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

I think I have to disagree, Level and DS.

To me, it's tantamount to "hate crimes" legislation.

If I get high (and I don't) and I smash you on the head and bust your skull, does it matter that I was high? I don't think so. What matters is that I busted your skull.

But, here's where the rub is: We would have to "re-think" the whole diminished capacity defense. To my mind, that would no longer be a mitigating circumstance. Your dumb ass chose to get high, your dumb ass can deal with the ramifications of what you do, while you're high (this includes alcohol, also, by the way).

That's where we're going to run into some interesting times (even if it's just marijuana that gets legalized).



Peace and comfort,



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: Level

Hey Michael. Hmm, I would certainly argue against allowing someone commiting a crime while high to be able to use diminished capacity as a defense; to me, that should be reserved for those with a mental illness, something they have no control over.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
It wouldn't be that the penalty would be for being high and doing something, it would be for the something with an additional penalty for being high while doing it. It would be like the increased penalty for committing a heist with a gun compared to not using a gun.

Just like "hate crimes" legislations are penalties on top of whatever original crime one commits. One murder is no better or worse than the next nor is one assault, etc. A crime is a crime and other than proving a motive in court, I don't care why you did it. You did it. Go to jail.
Peace and comfort,
Michael

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
You're equating a murder, with a murder committed while high, and a murder committed due to discrimination? While a murder definitely is a murder, the fact that racial/ethnic discrimination was at it's root also deserves to be penalized. It would be like a separate charge.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
You're equating a murder, with a murder committed while high, and a murder committed due to discrimination? While a murder definitely is a murder, the fact that racial/ethnic discrimination was at it's root also deserves to be penalized. It would be like a separate charge.

Then, clearly, we disagree. I don't care why a murderer kills someone (except for the ability to prove a motive). Their victim is just as dead. It doesn't matter why they did it. But, to bring us back on topic, that's my point for not having stiffer penalties for someone being high.
You commit a crime, you're guilty. I don't care if you're high, wanting to get high, or as sober as a judge. You committed a crime.
By having "high penalties" what you're doing is "legalizing" the drugs, marginally. It's legal but, if you break a law, we're gonna punish you even more than we would someone who isn't high. It's discrimination (and possibly not true legalization).
Peace and comfort,
Michael

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me. I appreciate that you are doing so in quite a civilized manner.

Having harsher punishments for a "high" murder isn't changing the guilt of the murder charge. It does, however, give an incentive for people to responsibly use marijuana. That's, IMO, the point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me. I appreciate that you are doing so in quite a civilized manner.
Having harsher punishments for a "high" murder isn't changing the guilt of the murder charge. It does, however, give an incentive for people to responsibly use marijuana. That's, IMO, the point.

Of course I'm doing it in a civilized manner. Neither of us are the type to get butt-hurt when someone disagrees or start screaming "RACIST!" at each other but, if you'll allow me to "use" you as an example ...
You're gay and you want to marry your partner. Right now, that's not legal. You protest. You propose new legislation, etc. Finally, the government says: "Okay, we're going to let you get married" (Translate to: "We're gonna let you smoke pot").
Sounds great? Good. Oh, by the way, if you have sex with anyone but your partner, we're going to fine you $5,000 and put you in jail for 60 days. (Translate to: "If you steal a HERSHEY™© bar while you're high, we're going to fine you and put you in jail for 60 days").
At best, it's a hurdle to true legalization. At worst, it's discrimination against people who are engaging in a legal activity (smoking weed or marrying same sex partners, in these examples).
Peace and comfort,
Michael

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
A more apt comparison would be alcohol. With their being no "extra" punishment for committing a crime while drunk, you may have a point. I think it would still fall under the umbrella, like alcohol, of being eligible for DUI/DWI enforcement.

quote:


Legalize for personal use only. 8% (3)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

FR

quote:


Legalize for personal use only. 8% (3)

I'd like to look at this response for a moment. I interpret "legalize for personal use only" as decriminalization. That's pretty much what we have in California these days.

It isn't working very well. Oh yes, those who like to smoke pot are good, but the marketplace is thriving with the money flowing in the shadows. The medical marijuana system here is a joke. Barkers call the "patients" into the plywood clinics of Venice Beach, where people pay from $40-300 dollars to get a magic letter that opens all the doors.

One visit to a dispensary (and it's on my errand list incidentally) tells you all you need to know about where the money is going.