Reilly says send all pot smokers to jail, babies next.

[Bugs100]

This morning on the news, they said the house was working on changing the law for getting caught with less than a ounce of pot. They want to change it to a civil offense, like other states have. Give them a fine and send them on their way.

Reilly says no, send them to jail, that the present law is fine. They need to go to the slammer to protect them from them selves and teach them the horrors of drug use.

We all know Pot smokers can go on to do worse things, like coke, robbing banks and worst of all reloading.

This sort of reminds me of the order the state issued a couple of months ago to all the hospitals. Stop giving babies free Infant Formula when they leave the hospital. That mothers have to breast feed their babies.

So what happens if they grab one of these little monsters nipping on a half ounce of Enfamil. Are they going to give him a 6 month sentence to save him from a life of horror.

Evidently Infant Formula must lead to, drinking, smoking and lusting after old blue revolvers

 

[senorFrog]

I don't follow your logic.

 

[Adam_MA]

Me either...

Weather or not you think that marijuana should be illegal or not, the fact remains that in MA it is illegal. Possession of illegal drugs is against the law! You break the law, you should be punished.

We are always talking about how they are letting criminals off, and not punishing them. This is actually a GOOD example of enforcing the law, and punishing the criminal.

Adam

 

[Admin]

Of course he wants them to go to jail, that means more trials, and more money for his lawyer supporters.

He doesn't want to bite the hand that feeds him. But I'm sure he's keeping the best interest of the state in mind. [roll]

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Me either...

Weather or not you think that marijuana should be illegal or not, the fact remains that in MA it is illegal. Possession of illegal drugs is against the law! You break the law, you should be punished.

We are always talking about how they are letting criminals off, and not punishing them. This is actually a GOOD example of enforcing the law, and punishing the criminal.

Adam

Actually, it is a debate about changing the law. The issue under discussion is not a policy of ignoring the law, but changing the law to modify the penalties. If the offense is moved from the criminal realm to civil infraction, I believe the terms become "violator" and "held responsible" rather than "criminal" and "guilty."

There is reasoned logic to each side of the debate, but "it's illegal now so that means it should not be changed since the fact that it is illegal now proves that it is wrong" is just plain faulty logic.

One interesting thing about the proposed change is that it will likely lead to a situation where a civil offense is a lifetime disqualifier - an interesting concept.

 

[Admin]

There is reasoned logic to each side of the debate, but "it's illegal now so that means it should not be changed since the fact that it is illegal now proves that it is wrong" is just plain faulty logic.

One interesting thing about the proposed change is that it will likely lead to a situation where a civil offense is a lifetime disqualifier - an interesting concept.

That's the way I see it Rob.

 

[Bugs100]

The point I was trying to make about the pot, is alot of other states are giving out tickets for less than a ounce to free up the jails and court systems.

I worked for the state prison system for over 20 years. All the state prisons and a couple of county are way over there limit. The cost of feeding them and caring for them is out of control.

Other states went to a civil fine along time ago with great results. Our police depts. are understaffed and over worked. Free them up to do more important work.

 

[bazfoo]

There is reasoned logic to each side of the debate, but "it's illegal now so that means it should not be changed since the fact that it is illegal now proves that it is wrong" is just plain faulty logic.

One interesting thing about the proposed change is that it will likely lead to a situation where a civil offense is a lifetime disqualifier - an interesting concept.

That's the way I see it Rob.

+1, after all, the laws were written by humans .. well, most of them anyway

 

[TOM-P]

They way I understand the proposal if you are caught with less than 1 oz of pot you will not be arrested, instead you will be handed a ticket for $150 bucks. I guess they use this system in a handful of other states and it is working to increase $$$$$. No costly court proceedings for the person who gets picked up for having a few joints.....


I dont follow the baby part

 

[Len-2A Training]

One interesting thing about the proposed change is that it will likely lead to a situation where a civil offense is a lifetime disqualifier - an interesting concept.

Yup, then they could throw parking tickets into the "lifetime disqualifier" too! Reilly might go for that! <just being sarcastic folks>

 

[Hamar]

Save some money in the prisons by eliminating such things as air conditioning and cable TV.

I am still confused why this state will freely give away new clean needles so people (criminals) can do their ILLEGAL drugs safely but then turn around and make it difficult for the law abiding citizen to exercise their rights (2nd Ammed.) as Americans.

"Sure go right ahead and take these needles and do your illegal drugs"

The next day when said drug taker needs cash for more drugs, he robs the poor citizen at the coming out of the minimart using a dirty needle saying its infected with the Aids virus. Poor citizen cant defend himself because his permit to carry in the city of quincy was denied because the police chief doesnt think he needs it...

Its a load of crap that WE need to put an end to.........Oh man,...dont get me started!

 

[JonJ]

One interesting thing about the proposed change is that it will likely lead to a situation where a civil offense is a lifetime disqualifier - an interesting concept.

Yup, then they could throw parking tickets into the "lifetime disqualifier" too! Reilly might go for that! <just being sarcastic folks>

I still can't figure how a guilty on a first time OUI is a disqualifier.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I'll welcome Bugs to throw his 2cents in on what I'm about to say here!

Back in the late 1970s, I was an officer in a Jaycee chapter that started a Jaycee chapter behind the walls in MCI-Walpole. Therefore, I was required to attend a few meetings "behind the walls" in the cafeteria and auditorium in Walpole.

One event was the installation of the officers of the MCI-Walpole Jaycee chapter and thus the inmates' SOs were allowed to attend. I witnessed a fair amount of pot smoking INSIDE the auditorium of MCI-Walpole that evening! Edited to add: Almost every person in the MCI-Walpole Jaycee chapter was a "lifer"! They really had nothing to lose doing whatever they wanted to behind the walls.

I am about as anti-drug a person as you'll find (one of my personal problems with the Libertarian party), but I do have mixed feelings about throwing someone in jail for possession of a joint or two. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for executing the dealers, no matter which drug they peddle or how much of it! Users of drugs and abusers of alcohol (especially OUI) would be (IMNSHO) better served in rehab AND community service in ERs where they can see the results of what they do and perhaps help others (especially in poorly staffed ERs). [This part was crystallized for me as I spent 5 hours in an ER on Halloween night with a prisoner who was OUI and struck a tree some 100' off of a roadway seriously injuring his Cousin. This area hospital ER had only 1 doctor, 1 nurse and 1 EMT working that evening and the place was a zoo. There were 3 people (all underage) there that had had accidents from the same party at a veteran's hall in a nearby town. Someone ran in and grabbed us (we were the only uniforms there) to tell us that they saw a dead body in the gutter outside the hospital - it was a drunk passed out. This was NOT in Boston, but one of the "quiet suburban towns". It was a very "educational" experience for me.]

 

[senorFrog]

don't follow your logic.

Me either...

Actually, it is a debate about changing the law...

There is reasoned logic to each side of the debate...

I just don't see the logic in the link he draws btwn pot and enfamil. I think he's been toking too much. [lol]

 

[Admin]

don't follow your logic.

Me either...

Actually, it is a debate about changing the law...

There is reasoned logic to each side of the debate...

I just don't see the logic in the link he draws btwn pot and enfamil. I think he's been toking too much. [lol]

"I was going to write a nice reply, but then I got high"
"I was going to fill out that FA-10, but then I got high"
"I was going to go get rid of that Hi-Cap, but then I got high"
"Now I'm sitting in the county jail, and now I know why"
"Heeeeey , heeeey, heeeey, because I got high, because I got high, because I got high"

 

[Adam_MA]

[lol] [lol]

 

[senorFrog]

I am still confused why this state will freely give away new clean needles so people (criminals) can do their ILLEGAL drugs safely

We as gun owners/activists need to start a movement w/broad liberal appeal. Forget the 2nd, they don't care about that. We need to charm their nanny-state sensibilities - FREE eye and ear protection!

If we can save JUST ONE gun owners eyes or hearing, it will be worth it. [lol]

 

[RKG]

Well, here I go having to duck again, but the notion that decriminalizing some aspect of drug use (which is what the proposal amounts to), while still purporting to object to the massive damage that drug use has done (and continues to do) to our society, doesn't make sense.

Either you're a hippy, in which case both buyers and sellers should be allowed to do what they want, without legal liability, or you're against drug use, in which case patting the poor user on the head while excoriating the person who sold to that user is illogical (and ineffective) in the extreme.

The fact of the matter is that our entire "war on drugs" is ass backwards. If we really want to eradicate the drug trade in the United States, forget about spending millions in massive raids against the suppliers (many of whom are beyond our reach, and which efforts are not only unsuccessful but corrosive of law enforcement by subjecting law enforcement officers to unwarranted risks and temptations) and simply jail the users. First offense: one year, full term served; second offense: five years, ditto; third offense, throw away the key (or accept permanent deportation to some drug-loving country that will accept you). The only effective way to kill the supply is by killing the demand.

Now I duck.

 

[Marcus in the Darkus]

One interesting thing about the proposed change is that it will likely lead to a situation where a civil offense is a lifetime disqualifier - an interesting concept.

A lifetime disqualifier from what? Anyone have the text of the proposed law?

 

[Bugs100]

The logic behind the Enfimal is the state thinks it's all right to do any thing it wants, by saying it's for your own good, like when they denied babies free formal in this state last month. How can they justify the right to tell the public they can't have free baby food from the hospitals.

In other words they just do what they want to up in the state house.

I was stunned that the state did that. Telling hospitals they can't give away free baby food to the mother when she leaves the hospital!!!!

Where does it stop????

 

[Admin]

The fact of the matter is that our entire "war on drugs" is ass backwards. If we really want to eradicate the drug trade in the United States, forget about spending millions in massive raids against the suppliers (many of whom are beyond our reach, and which efforts are not only unsuccessful but corrosive of law enforcement by subjecting law enforcement officers to unwarranted risks and temptations) and simply jail the users. First offense: one year, full term served; second offense: five years, ditto; third offense, throw away the key (or accept permanent deportation to some drug-loving country that will accept you). The only effective way to kill the supply is by killing the demand.

Now I duck.

I agree.

 

[senorFrog]

The logic behind the Enfimal is the state thinks it's all right to do any thing it wants, by saying it's for your own good, like when they denied babies free formal in this state last month. How can they justify the right to tell the public they can't have free baby food from the hospitals.

In other words they just do what they want to up in the state house.

I was stunned that the state did that. Telling hospitals they can't give away free baby food to the mother when she leaves the hospital!!!!

Where does it stop????

WANNA GET HIGH?

 

[C-pher]

don't follow your logic.

Me either...

Actually, it is a debate about changing the law...

There is reasoned logic to each side of the debate...

I just don't see the logic in the link he draws btwn pot and enfamil. I think he's been toking too much. [lol]

"I was going to write a nice reply, but then I got high"
"I was going to fill out that FA-10, but then I got high"
"I was going to go get rid of that Hi-Cap, but then I got high"
"Now I'm sitting in the county jail, and now I know why"
"Heeeeey , heeeey, heeeey, because I got high, because I got high, because I got high"

Too funny.

And by the way, the hospitals can still give out formula. We got our free gift when we left just a month ago. A nice diaper bag with a kick ass bottle cooler thing and a travel thing of wipes. Along with formula and some coupons.

The hospital said that it's not a law, and until it becomes one they can still hand it out. They also don't think that it will make it into law becauise there's too many people against it.


Now, back to the drugs. I too believe that having a joint should not be an arrestable offence. But it is, so you deal with it. While I don't smoke pot, I really don't see a problem if someone wants to come home after a hard day of work and fire up a bowl. I know many people that are like that...it's no different than when I come home and have a couple beers.

I do think that the police should be worring more about people that are killing people, touching babies and raping and beating women. But that's me. I don't think that the "Harder" drugs should be on the street. And I don't believe the HOOEY that people that smoke pot are going to start to snort coke or drop acid. I think that it's just a scare tactic like the anti gun people use to outlaw all guns.

But then that's me.

 

[KMaurer]

Well, here I go having to duck again, but the notion that decriminalizing some aspect of drug use (which is what the proposal amounts to), while still purporting to object to the massive damage that drug use has done (and continues to do) to our society, doesn't make sense.

There are quite a few things that I strongly oppose personally and that I reasonably believe do a lot of damage to people and society. Does it logically follow that I should favor criminal penalties against people involved with those things? Hardly. Alcohol kills far more people, destroys more families and results if much greater medical expenses than all illegal drugs combined. Does anybody out there actually believe that this means it didn't make any sense to end prohibition?

Let's try to be reasonable. Sometimes, particularly when we're talking about the criminal justice system, the alleged "cure" if much worse than the "disease" could ever be. All the hard evidence I've seen is that the war on drugs, so beloved by many people is a prime example of this. Considering what we currently spend on drug enforcement at all levels in this country, we could send every single drug user to the Betty Ford Clinic twice a year and still save a bundle. There's also the added benefit that the majority of violent crime, which is currently related to drug sales, importation and distribution, would essentially vanish without the potential for black market profits.

Saying that all the problems associated with drug distribution and use is a good reason for the current criminal approach makes exactly the same sense as saying that all the people shot by criminals and idiots is a good reason to outlaw all guns. Frank Zappa once noted that, "A drug is neither moral nor immoral -- it's a chemical compound. The compound itself is not a menace to society until a human being treats its consumption as a license to act like an a**h***." Just like alcohol; just like sex; just like books; just like guns.

Ken

 

[bazfoo]

Well, here I go having to duck again, but the notion that decriminalizing some aspect of drug use (which is what the proposal amounts to), while still purporting to object to the massive damage that drug use has done (and continues to do) to our society, doesn't make sense.

There are quite a few things that I strongly oppose personally and that I reasonably believe do a lot of damage to people and society. Does it logically follow that I should favor criminal penalties against people involved with those things? Hardly. Alcohol kills far more people, destroys more families and results if much greater medical expenses than all illegal drugs combined. Does anybody out there actually believe that this means it didn't make any sense to end prohibition?

Let's try to be reasonable. Sometimes, particularly when we're talking about the criminal justice system, the alleged "cure" if much worse than the "disease" could ever be. All the hard evidence I've seen is that the war on drugs, so beloved by many people is a prime example of this. Considering what we currently spend on drug enforcement at all levels in this country, we could send every single drug user to the Betty Ford Clinic twice a year and still save a bundle. There's also the added benefit that the majority of violent crime, which is currently related to drug sales, importation and distribution, would essentially vanish without the potential for black market profits.

Saying that all the problems associated with drug distribution and use is a good reason for the current criminal approach makes exactly the same sense as saying that all the people shot by criminals and idiots is a good reason to outlaw all guns. Frank Zappa once noted that, "A drug is neither moral nor immoral -- it's a chemical compound. The compound itself is not a menace to society until a human being treats its consumption as a license to act like an a**hole." Just like alcohol; just like sex; just like books; just like guns.

Ken

Good post, Ken. I agree.

 

[Chris]

I'd like to see the place in the Constitution that gives Congress the power to regulate what chemicals a person is allowed to put into their body.

The fact is that some people want it, and because of that someone will supply it.

We tried the ban method with Alcohol. Then we got smart and dealt with the abuse. When was the last time you heard about a drive-by shooting over alcohol?

Of course, with the alcohol prohibition, we had to ammend the constitution. Strange how there seemed to be no need when it came to drugs.

How much evidence is needed to realize that Prohibition of ANY kind does not work, and only fuels the criminals with a profitable industry?

 

[senorFrog]

I'd like to see the place in the Constitution that gives Congress the power to regulate what chemicals a person is allowed to put into their body.

True

The fact is that some people want it, and because of that someone will supply it.

True

We tried the ban method with Alcohol. Then we got smart and dealt with the abuse. When was the last time you heard about a drive-by shooting over alcohol?

No, but there are drunk drivers, bar fights, drunken gang rapes, drunken college riots, etc.

Of course, with the alcohol prohibition, we had to ammend the constitution. Strange how there seemed to be no need when it came to drugs.

True, we as gun owners know the ends justifies the means and the Constitution is just an old piece of paper written by a bunch of white guys that gets in the way.

How much evidence is needed to realize that Prohibition of ANY kind does not work, and only fuels the criminals with a profitable industry?

Well, true, but laws against murder for instance, do not prevent murders, but they're still a good idea.

 

[edin508]

One interesting thing about the proposed change is that it will likely lead to a situation where a civil offense is a lifetime disqualifier - an interesting concept.

Yup, then they could throw parking tickets into the "lifetime disqualifier" too! Reilly might go for that! <just being sarcastic folks>

I still can't figure how a guilty on a first time OUI is a disqualifier.

It isn't...

 

[JonJ]

No?

MASSACHUSETTS 1998 GUN CONTROL ACT
Misdemeanor Conviction Disqualifier for FID cards and LTC’s

Under Massachusetts law, misdemeanors punishable by imprisonment for more than two
years1 include the following offenses2:

Crimes Against the Person:

Assault (c. 265, §13A)
Assault & Battery (c. 265, §13A)
A&B on Public Employee (c. 265, §13D)
A&B on Ambulance Personnel (c. 265, §131)
Permitting Injury to a Child (c. 265, §13J)
Gross Negligence by Common Carrier (c. 265, §30)
A&B/Property Damage to Intimidate (c. 265, §39)
Causing Injury in a Physical Exercise Program (c. 265, §40)
Resisting Arrest (c. 268, §32B)

Crimes Against Property:

Failure to Report Hotel Fire (c. 266, §13A)
Larceny from Common Carrier/Business (c. 266, §30(1))
Larceny Under $250 from Elder/Disabled Person (c. 266, §30(5))
Shoplifting Over $100 (c. 266, §30A)
Falsely Obtaining Commercial Computer Service (c. 266, §33A)
Receipt of Deposit by Insolvent Bank (c. 266, §54)
Receiving Stolen Property Under $250 (c. 266, §60)
False Statement to Motor Vehicle Insurer (c. 266, §111B)
Obstruction of Medical Facility - Subseq. Offense (c. 266, §120E)
Wanton Destruction Property Over $250 (c. 266, §127)
Destruction Church/School Property (c. 266, §127A)
Destruction Jail Property (c. 266, §130)

Motor Vehicle Offenses:

Operating After Suspension for OUI/MVH, etc. (c. 90, §23)
Operating Under the Influence (c. 90, §24(1))
Motor Vehicle Homicide While OUI or While OTE (c. 90, §24G(b))
OUI With Serious Bodily Injury (c. 90, §24L(2))
OUI on a Vessel (c. 90B, §8(a))
OUI on a Vessel With Serious Bodily Injury (c. 90B, §8A(2))
Homicide by Vessel While OUI or While OTE (c. 90B, §8B(2))

1 Excluding weapons-related and controlled substance offenses, which are disqualifiers on a separate basis.
2 Please note that this list may not be exhaustive. When in doubt, reference should be made to the current
version of the relevant statute.

 

[edin508]

Tell you what. I have an ALP/LTC..nuff said.