Will drugs be accidentally legalized?

[g++]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2008-11-11-court_N.htm


WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court heard arguments Monday in a case that could have great impact because of prosecutors' widespread reliance on forensic evidence. The justices appeared open to ruling that lab workers must be available for cross-examination when states introduce drug, blood or other forensic reports at trial.
"Introducing forensic laboratory reports (without live witnesses) is the modern equivalent of trial by affidavit," said Stanford University law professor Jeffrey Fisher, representing Luis Melendez-Diaz, who was convicted of cocaine trafficking. Fisher challenged a Massachusetts policy, similar to others nationwide, that allows forensic analysts to submit certificates — here, a report on the authenticity and quantity of cocaine seized — without testifying.

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley countered that forcing lab workers to testify would be costly and time-consuming. "Misdemeanor drug prosecutions would essentially grind to a halt," she said.

The question is whether lab reports should be considered "testimonial," rather than objective public records. If they are testimonial, they would be subject to the Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses.

FIND MORE STORIES IN: California | United States Supreme Court | Stanford University | Justice Stephen Breyer | Sixth Amendment | Jeffrey Fisher | Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley
In recent years, the court has more broadly interpreted the right to confront witnesses. Justice Antonin Scalia, who was among those sympathetic to Melendez-Diaz's claim, has taken the lead in making it harder for witnesses' statements to be introduced without testimony.

Thirty-five states are siding with Massachusetts. One of the groups backing Melendez-Diaz, the National Innocence Network, says forensic evidence is wrongly assumed to be infallible. The group asserts that in most of the exonerations it has obtained, forensic errors, such as blood type testing, played a key role in conviction.

The justices seemed aware of the case's scope.

"Labs are backed up with DNA," Justice Anthony Kennedy said. "This is a very, very substantial burden if we tell every state … that in every drug case the state must produce the expert."

Yet Kennedy also noted that California, "a huge state with many, many drug prosecutions" is among the handful of states that already require analysts' testimony, and it "seems to get along all right."

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked why it was not enough that a defendant can subpoena lab workers if questions about tainted evidence arise.

Fisher said the prosecution should bear the burden of putting on witnesses for its assertion of the facts. "We would vigorously oppose any attempt to shift the burden on the defense to call witnesses like that," Fisher said.

Ginsburg also challenged Coakley's prediction of a congested system. "There are going to be a large number that wash out because they are plea bargained," Ginsburg said, adding that in many other cases the defense will accept the lab report.

When Coakley minimized the chance of bad convictions arising from lab reports, Justice Stephen Breyer expressed disbelief: "Aren't there some things I read in the paper … about these laboratories in various places, and they lost the results, they got it all wrong? That just doesn't happen?"


If the supreme court says lab workers must testify at trial simple possession will pretty much not be a crime anymore since it would be cost prohibitive to get lab techs to testify every time someone smokes a joint.

[Keller]

I had not heard of this case yet.

That's a really interesting argument. I don't think it'll win, but it is very interesting.

[Jorddyn]

I'd prefer on-purpose legalization.

[Ignot]

I would like to see a marijuana legalization but not any other drugs.

[SolitareConfinement]

prohibition NEVER has and NEVER will work as well as regulation and control with legalization....it is easier for a 14 year old child to get marijuana or any other drug for that matter than alcohol or cigarettes

[g++]

I think that has more to do with the fact that the 14 year olds outside liquor stores are getting less and less attractive.

[SolitareConfinement]

and what is the excuse for that happening in the 70s and 80s?

[g++]

and what is the excuse for that happening in the 70s and 80s?

You mean how would they prove drugs were drugs in the 70's and 80's? Same way they do today. I dont think theres been any really huge break throughs in basic chemistry in the past 50 years whether they used testing kits or not Im not sure but if someone claimed a pill was tylenol and it was actually a drug Im sure they could have had a chemist testify to what it was at any time in the 20th century. The thing is though that the volume of drug trials today combined with the fact that people expect labs to certify evidence could make it cost prohibitive today to keep trying petty drug charges like we do now.

[crb]

10 people go to rob a guy.

The guy pulls out a double shot 12 gauge.

Idiot among the 10 says "You only got 2 shots, you can't kill all of us."

Guy with gun says "No, but I can kill 2 of you, who is first?"


Is anyone going to go smoke a joint in front of a cop because there is only a 20% chance that the prosecution will be able to produce an expert witness?

[SolitareConfinement]

actually i was referencing the fact that as long as prohibition of all certain drugs has been going on, what is the excuse for our kids always having an easier time getting their hands on these prohibited drugs than the ones we legalize?


i am not focusing on the loophole that can possibly create legalization heh. I'm focusing on the damage that prohibition is actually doing.

[g++]

10 people go to rob a guy.

The guy pulls out a double shot 12 gauge.

Idiot among the 10 says "You only got 2 shots, you can't kill all of us."

Guy with gun says "No, but I can kill 2 of you, who is first?"


Is anyone going to go smoke a joint in front of a cop because there is only a 20% chance that the prosecution will be able to produce an expert witness?


In Baltimore they already drop or STET most minor drug charges just because the trial itself is too expensive, im thinking in areas like mine this could be the tipping point to where the prosecutors were just like...fuck it we aren't going to try any we will just turn simple possession into a civil citation.

[Keller]

10 people go to rob a guy.

The guy pulls out a double shot 12 gauge.

Idiot among the 10 says "You only got 2 shots, you can't kill all of us."

Guy with gun says "No, but I can kill 2 of you, who is first?"


Is anyone going to go smoke a joint in front of a cop because there is only a 20% chance that the prosecution will be able to produce an expert witness?

Holy leap of logic, Batman!

What the fuck are you talking about?

People already smoke pot because they don't think there is a reasonable chance they will get caught and if they do, that they'll be slapped on the wrist.

This would be just one more step toward people not fearing legitimate penalties for illegal behavior.

No one is talking about lighting a spliff at a FOP meeting. Even in Amsterdam you'll get hauled to jail for lighting up in front of a cop.

[crb]

well that is different.

States reacting to decriminalize or or just making it a ticket wouldn't be accidentially legal, and wouldn't have any uncertainty.

[g++]

well that is different.

States reacting to decriminalize or or just making it a ticket wouldn't be accidentially legal, and wouldn't have any uncertainty.

Ah you read the title and not the article. Gotcha.

[SolitareConfinement]

Ah you read the title and not the article. Gotcha.

for the record thats pretty much what i did too...give me a moment i'll actually read that wall of text right quick

[crb]

Holy leap of logic, Batman!

What the fuck are you talking about?

People already smoke pot because they don't think there is a reasonable chance they will get caught and if they do, that they'll be slapped on the wrist.

This would be just one more step toward people not fearing legitimate penalties for illegal behavior.

No one is talking about lighting a spliff at a FOP meeting. Even in Amsterdam you'll get hauled to jail for lighting up in front of a cop.
I never said there weren't dumb people out there Keller.

Would you pay russian roullete with your life because you think there is a good chance you won't be prosecuted?

That is the question, if the criminally leaning smoke pot and don't care if they're caught, nothing has changed. But suppose being arrested would result in you being kicked out of school, lose your job, lose business, lose professional certification of some sort, lose your children (if you have a record and this is the last straw). There are plenty of people who would have a lot to lose if they were arrested on drug charges and prosecuted, a lower chance of being prosecuted is not going to allow these people to do drugs, they won't take the 10% or 20% risk.

Maybe your life is shitty enough to just throw away, but lots of people have things they'd rather not lose, and actual legalization, not just a lowered risk of full prosecution, is what needs to happen.

[Keller]

I never said there weren't dumb people out there Keller.

Would you pay russian roullete with your life because you think there is a good chance you won't be prosecuted?

That is the question, if the criminally leaning smoke pot and don't care if they're caught, nothing has changed. But suppose being arrested would result in you being kicked out of school, lose your job, lose business, lose professional certification of some sort, lose your children (if you have a record and this is the last straw). There are plenty of people who would have a lot to lose if they were arrested on drug charges and prosecuted, a lower chance of being prosecuted is not going to allow these people to do drugs, they won't take the 10% or 20% risk.

Maybe your life is shitty enough to just throw away, but lots of people have things they'd rather not lose, and actual legalization, not just a lowered risk of full prosecution, is what needs to happen.

I agree that legalization is what needs to happen. But that doesn't make your analogy any less realistic.

And for the record, I generally play russian roulette with my life about twice a week. But I realistically think there is about a .01% chance I'll ever get caught. And a 5% chance that if I get caught, I'll get cited/arrested. And another maybe 1% chance that if I get cited it'll negatively affect my life beyond a financial penalty and possibly a couple thousand (max) in lawyer's fees.

Edited to add: and my profession depends on being in good standing. But I don't get drug tested currently, so I'm sure others in jobs where they do get tested would be more apprehensive.

[SolitareConfinement]

I never said there weren't dumb people out there Keller.

Would you pay russian roullete with your life because you think there is a good chance you won't be prosecuted?

That is the question, if the criminally leaning smoke pot and don't care if they're caught, nothing has changed. But suppose being arrested would result in you being kicked out of school, lose your job, lose business, lose professional certification of some sort, lose your children (if you have a record and this is the last straw). There are plenty of people who would have a lot to lose if they were arrested on drug charges and prosecuted, a lower chance of being prosecuted is not going to allow these people to do drugs, they won't take the 10% or 20% risk.

Maybe your life is shitty enough to just throw away, but lots of people have things they'd rather not lose, and actual legalization, not just a lowered risk of full prosecution, is what needs to happen.
OMG i need to lrn2read!

[g++]

I agree that legalization is what needs to happen. But that doesn't make your analogy any less realistic.

And for the record, I generally play russian roulette with my life about twice a week. But I realistically think there is about a .01% chance I'll ever get caught. And a 5% chance that if I get caught, I'll get cited/arrested. And another maybe 1% chance that if I get cited it'll negatively affect my life beyond a financial penalty and possibly a couple thousand (max) in lawyer's fees.

Shit man my sister was a full blown heroin addict, was arrested 4 times with heroin in her possession. All 4 cases are(or were) on STET or PBJ on condition of rehab, she currently receives federal financial aid and has a job that involved a back ground check. I really think we are blowing the penalties for smoking a joint a bit out of proportion. Sure some judge could ruin your life on a misdemeanor possession charge if you went into a trial without a lawyer or something but around where I live it does not turn out that way.

[Hulkein]

In my experience here in Philly they already require the technician. The defendant usually will stipulate to it, but if they don't, we call the technician.

[Stanley Burrell]

We need to ban Adderall. Because I am jealous of all the people who can just eat it non-prescribed like it was still Halloween. We should also make pot more illegal, so it's cooler to smoke.

We should also ban things like grapefruit, that work synergistically with certain liver pathways to intensify and alter the effects of alkaloids/narcotics.

Then, we will do nothing, because; and I'm being serious here, jack-to-the-motherfucking-shit is going to change regarding this, no matter how many times white people think they're Rastafarian. This isn't a what-if. If you have the biggest publicized weed sipher in the continental United States, because you read this article, and are subsequently hauled off, I cannot pity you.

They should legalize once people, usually single child white males in mostly liberal colleges from suburban backgrounds, stop coming up with excuses for smoking that have to deal with Nietzche. And obviously I'm 110% for pot legalization that will never happen, nor is the main subject of this thread.

Anyway, if you're that upset, just burn catnip around the RA like you didn't inhale White Out.

Long live the police. asdf

[Gan]

We need to ban Adderall. Because I am jealous of all the people who can just eat it non-prescribed like it was still Halloween. We should also make pot more illegal, so it's cooler to smoke.

We should also ban things like grapefruit, that work synergistically with certain liver pathways to intensify and alter the effects of alkaloids/narcotics.

Then, we will do nothing, because; and I'm being serious here, jack-to-the-motherfucking-shit is going to change regarding this, no matter how many times white people think they're Rastafarian. This isn't a what-if. If you have the biggest publicized weed sipher in the continental United States, because you read this article, and are subsequently hauled off, I cannot pity you.

They should legalize once people, usually single child white males in mostly liberal colleges from suburban backgrounds, stop coming up with excuses for smoking that have to deal with Nietzche. And obviously I'm 110% for pot legalization that will never happen, nor is the main subject of this thread.

Anyway, if you're that upset, just burn catnip around the RA like you didn't inhale White Out.

Long live the police. asdf

:lol:

Stan, you're a fucking trip.

I'd buy you a beer and a bong if you were anywhere near Houston.

[Ignot]

Booze and weed does not make a good combo. At least for me, I always get ill.

[Keller]

Booze and weed does not make a good combo. At least for me, I always get ill.

The trick is to smoke and then drink.

Smoking when drunk is always a recipe for disaster. And by disaster I spinning to the point that you vomit. Many times.

[Stanley Burrell]

You guys must have working satiety centers somewhere in your hypothalami. I get absurd beer munchies, and I get schizophrenically ridiculous weed munchies. Together, I'd be the first plane crash survivor in the Andes who implemented cannibalism.

Edit: Not that I haven't drank and smoke, simultaneously. Unlike Keller though, I eat to the point of vomitization. Yes, I am a sad person.

Um. Sure, Gan. I'll take you up on the beer. I won't insult the entire known galaxy by ordering a light beer either.

[BigWorm]

The trick is to smoke and then drink.

Smoking when drunk is always a recipe for disaster. And by disaster I spinning to the point that you vomit. Many times.

QFT

These are wise words, friends. Very wise words.

[crb]

I've never had a problem, but I've never got riproaring drunk while high though.

Every time we've been to Jamaica I'll have a joint in one hand, an alcoholic mixed drink of some sort in the other, and be feeling nothing but good.

[Keller]

I've never had a problem, but I've never got riproaring drunk while high though.

Every time we've been to Jamaica I'll have a joint in one hand, an alcoholic mixed drink of some sort in the other, and be feeling nothing but good.

Oh, you can smoke and drink simultaneously, too.

But the key is to not be drunk -- and then smoke.

I only did it once.

I can easily smoke and then get drunk. There is just something about sudden onset of being high that'll spin your world if you're drunk. And all the spinning will make you puke.

[Sean]

I've never had a problem, but I've never got riproaring drunk while high though.

Every time we've been to Jamaica I'll have a joint in one hand, an alcoholic mixed drink of some sort in the other, and be feeling nothing but good.

Out of curiousity why smoke in Jamaica but not the states (not that you said that but I'm assuming) considering it's not legal there either?

[crb]

Its technically illegal there, but not really in practice.

I don't buy at the airport, which is the only place I've ever heard of a tourist getting arrested for it, and don't smoke it out of the resort, and the resort really isn't going to invite law enforcement in to arrest their customers. It is about as illegal there as jaywalking is here. In fact probably the only reason they keep it illegal is because of US government pressure.

The bellmen who carry your bags to your room can usually even get it for you, so you can buy it in your room, stick it in your room safe, and never smoke it out of your room if you like.

You can even leave a half smoked joint in your ashtray and the maids will clean the ashtray and put the joint back in.

And it is ridiculously cheap and good. $30 will buy enough to last a week of heavy smoking with enough to share with friends and some left over to pay it forward at the end of the week.

[Daniel]

Shit man my sister was a full blown heroin addict, was arrested 4 times with heroin in her possession. All 4 cases are(or were) on STET or PBJ on condition of rehab, she currently receives federal financial aid and has a job that involved a back ground check. I really think we are blowing the penalties for smoking a joint a bit out of proportion. Sure some judge could ruin your life on a misdemeanor possession charge if you went into a trial without a lawyer or something but around where I live it does not turn out that way.

I'm guessing your sister is white...

[g++]

Yah but I currently work in a facility that intakes drug addicts on a daily basis and I assure you the average black drug addict in Baltimore has a similiar amount of no-trial catch and release drug interactions on their record. Although some do have convictions once they get to the point where they stop showing up to court or attempting to work with a lawyer or getting convicted of non-drug related shit in their daily lives.. I think it has a lot to do with how many rehabs a person has done too. A judge will likely PBJ or STET anything if they can get the person into treatment depending on your judge obviously.

[Gan]

Um. Sure, Gan. I'll take you up on the beer. I won't insult the entire known galaxy by ordering a light beer either.

Guinness with a fork please!

http://home.earthlink.net/~mikerider/webpics/GuinnessBeer.jpg

[Clove]

Yah but I currently work in a facility that intakes drug addicts on a daily basis and I assure you the average black drug addict in Baltimore has a similiar amount of no-trial catch and release drug interactions on their record. Although some do have convictions once they get to the point where they stop showing up to court or attempting to work with a lawyer or getting convicted of non-drug related shit in their daily lives.. I think it has a lot to do with how many rehabs a person has done too. A judge will likely PBJ or STET anything if they can get the person into treatment depending on your judge obviously.How dare you suggest that your sister's skin color didn't play a major role in her drug-charge sentencing!

[Daniel]

How dare you suggest that your sister's skin color didn't play a major role in her drug-charge sentencing!

So you don't believe in statistics? I'm glad Baltimorms to be better than some places.

[Alfster]

Oh, you can smoke and drink simultaneously, too.

But the key is to not be drunk -- and then smoke.

I only did it once.

I can easily smoke and then get drunk. There is just something about sudden onset of being high that'll spin your world if you're drunk. And all the spinning will make you puke.

For the record, I quit smoking weed about a year ago.

However, when I did smoke, I would usually get hammered drunk at least twice a week and then smoke. I very rarely got sick.

However, those nights are nights that turned into crazy nights with no recollection of what had happened...and waking up in the weirdest places is scary at times.

Also - I always got sick when I threw in a third drug. Terribad idea. I don't know why I continued to do it.

[g++]

How dare you suggest that your sister's skin color didn't play a major role in her drug-charge sentencing!

Im not claiming it would not help her in some places, I think the justice system over all is pretty racist and sexist. I keep qualifying the story with the area however because she was arrested in East Baltimore every time. I was not at the trial but having lived in Baltimore my entire life my guess is the audience was 90% black the defendants were 90% black and the prosecutor and judge were likely black and if we had not hired her an attorney in Towson she probarbly would have been represented by a black public defender. Im not saying racism does not exist but in the area of Baltimore she was getting picked up its pretty fucking unlikely. She did undoubtedly catch a break on the fact that we had the money to pay for unlimited rehabs, if she was homeless she prolly would have seen the inside of a real jail instead of sitting in holding till we could bail her out. One of those times she did get the shit kicked out of her during the 4 hour wait for bail however.

[Keller]

How dare you suggest that your sister's skin color didn't play a major role in her drug-charge sentencing!

I know for a fact that my skin-color and social status would play a major factor in my not getting cited for possession.

If I were some hippy working at a headshop, there is a much higher chance I'd get into trouble if caught.

I understand you want to mock Daniel, but it's also disingenious to not acknowledge that one's skin color does play a role in nearly every step in the process.

[TheEschaton]

So, MA decriminalized possession last Tuesday in the election. I've been to court twice since then, and the judges have been just tossing out Class D possession, even over the Commonwealth's objection (which leads it open to appeal, but the DA isn't going to appeal a shit-ton of Class D dismissals). It's pretty crazy, actually. I found myself in court the other day with nothing to do, because as the call of the list progressed, the judge was just dismissing the case without hearing from either side, and noting our objection on each one without us even having to say it.

Furthermore, the certificates are pretty standard in MA (in fact, I've never met a drug lab tech). The cops submit the drugs, they give us back the certs, done.

In conjunction with the decriminalization, it might be feasible to ask lab techs to come in. However, there's currently a 6-9 month wait on drug certs for weed, about a 3 month wait on certs for cocaine/heroin. Asking techs to come in will just extend that wait.

-TheE-

[Daniel]

I understand you want to mock Daniel, but it's also disingenious to not acknowledge that one's skin color does play a role in nearly every step in the process.


How dare you suggest that there is still institutional racism in the judicial system.

[Tea & Strumpets]

I understand you want to mock Daniel, but it's also disingenious to not acknowledge that one's skin color does play a role in nearly every step in the process.

That's a pretty sweeping statement. What if the judge hearing the case is a black man? I'll assume your head just exploded if you don't reply.

[g++]

Explain how that preachers wife got 6 months for shot gunning her unarmed husband while hundreds of black men are serving life in prison after being convicted based on single witness testimony and well sort the little shit out later.

Save you the googles

Mary Winkler
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/14/preacher.slain/index.html

Innocence Project Statistics on black men being statistically more likely to be convicted based on faulty eye witness testimony than any other race
http://www.blackperspective.net/index.php/260/

[Clove]

I know for a fact that my skin-color and social status would play a major factor in my not getting cited for possession.

If I were some hippy working at a headshop, there is a much higher chance I'd get into trouble if caught... it's also disingenious to not acknowledge that one's skin color does play a role in nearly every step in the process
I didn't say it didn't play a role, I added the qualifier "major". Given G++ account I would say her location and resources played a major role in her result. I submit that a black woman picked up for the same crime in the same area with the same resources, would have ended up in the same situation. But that's merely my opinion.
I understand you want to mock Daniel...And why isn't that reason enough? It's not like Daniel worries about restraint in the mocking department.

[Tea & Strumpets]

Explain how that preachers wife got 6 months for shot gunning her unarmed husband while hundreds of black men are serving life in prison after being convicted based on single witness testimony and well sort the little shit out later.

Save you the googles

Mary Winkler
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/14/preacher.slain/index.html

Innocence Project Statistics on black men being statistically more likely to be convicted based on faulty eye witness testimony than any other race
http://www.blackperspective.net/index.php/260/

Sexism is clearly the only possible reason.

[g++]

Sexism is clearly the only possible reason.


http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/race-and-death-penalty

[Clove]

Explain how that preachers wife got 6 months for shot gunning her unarmed husband while hundreds of black men are serving life in prison after being convicted based on single witness testimony and well sort the little shit out later.

Save you the googles

Mary Winkler
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/14/preacher.slain/index.html

Innocence Project Statistics on black men being statistically more likely to be convicted based on faulty eye witness testimony than any other race
http://www.blackperspective.net/index.php/260/Clearly the courts are biased against unmarried people!

[TheEschaton]

Well, technically "stability" is something the courts consider in various situations. Somehow, they judge marriages to often be more stable. LOL.

[Gan]

I didn't say it didn't play a role, I added the qualifier "major". Given G++ account I would say her location and resources played a major role in her result. I submit that a black woman picked up for the same crime in the same area with the same resources, would have ended up in the same situation. But that's merely my opinion.

Racist

[Tea & Strumpets]

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/race-and-death-penalty

Those ridiculous statistics (the first two bullet points especially) don't have anything to do with what I was talking about. I mean really, those first two bullet points are completely assinine and expect you to infer a lot of information. I didn't bother reading much further after that because I'm lazy.

Don't get me wrong, my original point was never that race has never played part in a trial. I just disagreed with Keller's "you automatically get a harsher sentence if you are black" summation.

[Tea & Strumpets]

I just realized that site has more bullet points than I thought, so these were the two that made me laugh because of how much information is ignored or excluded.


* Even though blacks and whites are murder victims in nearly equal numbers of crimes, 80% of people executed since the death penalty was reinstated have been executed for murders involving white victims.
* More than 20% of black defendants who have been executed were convicted by all-white juries.

[Daniel]

Don't get me wrong, my original point was never that race has never played part in a trial. I just disagreed with Keller's "you automatically get a harsher sentence if you are black" summation.

There are several studies and reports done detailing systematic racial bias in the judicial system. Before you claim that they all "biased" or silly", a lot of them have been commissioned and carried out by state and federal entities.

It's a known fact.

[Mabus]

Our aggressive campaign against drugs has resulted in the U.S. having the highest incarceration rate in the world, in both terms of absolute and relative numbers--a huge expense--and for what? Prison terms create hardened criminals; they don't rehabilitate, if you look at the data.

From an ideological perspective, from a fiscal conservative prospective, from a civil rights perspective, legalization is the right path for several currently banned drugs.
Nice post.

A lot of people do not realize that we have 1 out of 20 people in the world in the USA, but 1 out of 4 people imprisoned in the world are imprisoned in the "Land of the Free".

I do not promote drug use, but I do believe in legalization, education and treatment. The costs to society will be far less, though the human cost to some users may be great.

In order for legalization to happen there are several treaties, and many state and federal laws, that will have to be revisited. This is without even getting into any tax structures, treatment plans or educational goals and curriculum. The main federal law would be the Controlled Substances Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act).

Many conservatives have even called for the end to the "War on Drugs", including William Buckley, George Shultz and economist Milton Friedman.

The situation needs a fresh approach, as the current prohibition is not working.

[g++]

Those ridiculous statistics (the first two bullet points especially) don't have anything to do with what I was talking about. I mean really, those first two bullet points are completely assinine and expect you to infer a lot of information. I didn't bother reading much further after that because I'm lazy.

Don't get me wrong, my original point was never that race has never played part in a trial. I just disagreed with Keller's "you automatically get a harsher sentence if you are black" summation.

Erm thats the additional resources section I was mostly trying to toss out the first 8 links to articles on disparities in death penalty cases by race. It includes raw statistics with no inferences. Im also middle of the road Im sure millions of fair trials take place in America every year but some are not. All I am saying.

[Daniel]

I didn't say it didn't play a role, I added the qualifier "major".


So...uh.. you don't believe in statistics? I'm not going to argue that her particular situation was not affected by race. However, that ignores an extremely large body of research that suggests that race is a "major" fact in the judicial system.


It's not like Daniel worries about restraint in the mocking department.

Don't get mad at me because you were incredibly wrong in your electoral predictions. It wouldn't have been an issue if you and your buddies weren't such pompous assholes about it. "OMFG, you're so stupid if you think Obama is going to win!!11!! <circle jerk each other>.

[Tea & Strumpets]

There are several studies and reports done detailing systematic racial bias in the judicial system. Before you claim that they all "biased" or silly", a lot of them have been commissioned and carried out by state and federal entities.

It's a known fact.

I tried to make it clear that my point wasn't that there's never been a judgment that wasn't influenced by racism (I think there's been a lot of them), but you have to admit your justification for those studies was a little funny.

[Daniel]

I tried to make it clear that my point wasn't that there's never been a judgment that wasn't influenced by racism (I think there's been a lot of them), but you have to admit your justification for those studies was a little funny.

How so?

I was merely pointing out that there have been several serious studies into the subject which have found inherent bias.

I sincerely doubt a state would go out of it's way to find that their institutions are racist.

[Tea & Strumpets]

How so?

I was merely pointing out that there have been several serious studies into the subject which have found inherent bias.

I sincerely doubt a state would go out of it's way to find that their institutions are racist.

I'm just not convinced it's logical to "prove" your point by saying that the government has provided statistical evidence that the government is wrong. That was the part I thought was funny.

[Hulkein]

In conjunction with the decriminalization, it might be feasible to ask lab techs to come in. However, there's currently a 6-9 month wait on drug certs for weed, about a 3 month wait on certs for cocaine/heroin. Asking techs to come in will just extend that wait.

-TheE-

6-9 months??? What the hell is wrong with Mass.? And yes, that is rhetorical when speaking about a state that continually elects John Kerry and Ted Kennedy.

It's around a 6 week wait in Pa.

[Clove]

So...uh.. you don't believe in statistics? I'm not going to argue that her particular situation was not affected by race. Of course not.

I'm guessing your sister is white...You'll simply imply it. I have never denied that racism exists in the judicial system. It doesn't exist in every goddamn case though and I don't think it existed in this one.



Don't get mad at me because you were incredibly wrong in your electoral predictions. It wouldn't have been an issue if you and your buddies weren't such pompous assholes about it. "OMFG, you're so stupid if you think Obama is going to win!!11!! <circle jerk each other>.Really? I said that? That was my attitude in my Obama predictions? I said on several ocassions (early in the campaign season) that I felt McCain would win but the Senate and House would go Democrat. And I never stated, or implied that people were stupid for not sharing that opinion.

You're painting a picture of me that is flatly false.

As for my friends, at least one of whom that I'm sure you're including on the list considered me an Obama supporter because of the several posts I made defending him against what I considered pointless criticisms.

Fuck you very much.

[Jorddyn]

6-9 months??? What the hell is wrong with Mass.? And yes, that is rhetorical when speaking about a state that continually elects John Kerry and Ted Kennedy.



All the lab techs are busy smoking pot?

[Gan]

:deadhorse:

[Jorddyn]

:deadhorse:

Must you bring your fetishes into this highly civilized debate?

[Gan]

Must you bring your fetishes into this highly civilized debate?
Heh. sexual innuendos aside.


I hate leftovers.

[Daniel]

Of course not.
You'll simply imply it. I have never denied that racism exists in the judicial system. It doesn't exist in every goddamn case though and I don't think it existed in this one.

Now you're just being disingenuous. You know for a fact that I've never argued that all cases are inherently biased but that there is undoubtedly institutional bias within the system.

It was an off the cuff remark, not a doctoral thesis. Don't get all pissy @ me because you have a hair up your ass.



Really? I said that? That was my attitude in my Obama predictions? I said on several ocassions (early in the campaign season) that I felt McCain would win but the Senate and House would go Democrat. And I never stated, or implied that people were stupid for not sharing that opinion.

You're painting a picture of me that is flatly false.


Really? you were never a McCain homer and made snide little bitch comments to people who said you were as much?

So what about when you said..


Obama can campaign all he wants, but he's going to need a miracle to beat McCain on his own at this point.


and followed it up with...





I thought the election was in November . . . .

Yup and at this point he's already lost it. But I know longer have to worry about you showing up at the wrong time to vote.

Or about about this in response to TheE...



Gear up for 4 years of McCain and pick me up some coffee while you're over in France, would you?

Maybe throw in some borderline racist shit for good measure....


I don't know. The strongest recommendation I can make for Obama is that he's run a very shrewd campaign. Just about everything else about his policy suggestions trouble though.

Still as I am watching his "victory speech" tonight, I can't help but hum the theme from the Jeffersons.



As for my friends, at least one of whom that I'm sure you're including on the list considered me an Obama supporter because of the several posts I made defending him against what I considered pointless criticisms.

Fuck you very much.

Yea. Because PB is really the person you wanna be trotting here to attest to your character.

So. Yea. Fuck you very much too.

[TheEschaton]

We have a very high drug case per drug lab rate, which would imply we need more drug labs, but some people are too stubborn to realize it.

-TheE-

[Gan]

We have a very high drug case per drug lab rate, which would imply we need more drug labs, but some people are too stubborn to realize it.

-TheE-

We have a very high drug case per inmate rate, which would imply we need more prisons. And as someone in the prison business (again), I'm all for it. ;)

[Gan]

I guess I should have put that in italics.

[Gan]

I guess I should have put that in italics.

I agree!

[Warriorbird]

Classy.

[Hulkein]

I'd really like to see drug laws revamped. Regulate drug sales and you can control who has access to them much better. Tax the sales and put a portion of that into drug rehabilitation programs that actually address the root of drug abuse.

I don't know how far up the line of drugs I'd agree with being legalized but even legalizing marijuana would open up some room in the prisons for violent criminals.

[ElanthianSiren]

I'd really like to see drug laws revamped. Regulate drug sales and you can control who has access to them much better. Tax the sales and put a portion of that into drug rehabilitation programs that actually address the root of drug abuse.

I don't know how far up the line of drugs I'd agree with being legalized but even legalizing marijuana would open up some room in the prisons for violent criminals.

Agreed. It's unreal that we have 5% of the world's population but 24% of its incarcerations and much of them for drug related offenses. Then states complain they don't have enough money, especially califorinia, for the prison system. When I was in HS, I thought I might want to go into criminal justice, so I studied the RICO act and three strikes in California specifically for a semester; it didn't last long but long enough for me to decide something is screwy with, if nothing else, the way our drug laws are applied.

With drugs also, I waver between how people should be allowed to kill themselves. In the category of legal recreational drugs, however, we have one responsible for most cancers that's more addictive than heroin and deals passive damage also. It has no medical application. Then, you have a drug like marijuana, which has a multitude of medical applications (glaucoma, cancer treatment, arthritis treatment, AIDs), not particularly physically addictive, and illegal (still has passive risks). I find that really screwy, but I don't have any answers really for your second point, except to say that I agree.

[g++]

It would be in some ways funny to see hard core drugs legalized. Like see cocaine for sale at 7-11 with flashy packages. Now with 99% less laxative!

[Hulkein]

It would be in some ways funny to see hard core drugs legalized. Like see cocaine for sale at 7-11 with flashy packages. Now with 99% less laxative!

Hah. That is a funny thought but in reality though you'd have to regulate it more than that. Have stores that strictly sell drugs.

[ElanthianSiren]

Hah. That is a funny thought but in reality though you'd have to regulate it more than that. Have stores that strictly sell drugs.

They have this in California for marijuana. They sell some crazy things though. One of the chicks I play wow with talks about the stuff she buys there, despite it being a store for medical marijuana script holders. Weed soda? Come on.

[Clove]

Hah. That is a funny thought but in reality though you'd have to regulate it more than that. Have stores that strictly sell drugs.I think you'd have to regulate harder drugs even more than that, but I agree with ES and you that our drug laws are ridiculous.

[g++]

Hah. That is a funny thought but in reality though you'd have to regulate it more than that. Have stores that strictly sell drugs.

I was joking to be honest, I think they would have to draw the line at marijuana realistically. I mean some people can get away with using cocaine occasionally but I have also seen other people lick empty tables while high because their so addicted so I think it would devastate a large portion of the population if cocaine was legal, every drunk in the country would be walking around with it and all of a sudden it would be an epidemic. Heroin and crack obviously are way too addictive. Ecstacy causes long term emotional problems and LSD would be a nightmare. I just cant think of a drug other than marijuana that could legally be sold without serious social consequences. Now lowering or eliminating the penalties and incarceration for simple possession I could get on board with.

[Mabus]

I think they would have to draw the line at marijuana realistically. I mean some people can get away with using cocaine occasionally but I have also seen other people lick empty tables while high because their so addicted so I think it would devastate a large portion of the population if cocaine was legal,
Would it surprise you that marijuana was currently Schedule I, while cocaine was Schedule II?

In other words cocaine can be currently (and is currently) prescribed for medical usage, while marijuana remains more illegal to use or possess, under federal law.

[Clove]

I was joking to be honest, I think they would have to draw the line at marijuana realistically. I mean some people can get away with using cocaine occasionally but I have also seen other people lick empty tables while high because their so addicted so I think it would devastate a large portion of the population if cocaine was legal, every drunk in the country would be walking around with it and all of a sudden it would be an epidemic. Heroine and crack obviously are way too addictive. Ecstacy causes long term emotional problems and LSD would be a nightmare. I just cant think of a drug other than marijuana that could legally be sold without serious social consequences. Now lowering or eliminating the penalties and incarceration for simple possession I could get on board with.I don't know, I don't think there are addicts out there who aren't getting it now because "it's illegal". All of the harder drugs could be made legal tomorrow and I wouldn't go running out to the "opium den" to try out crack!

I'm not saying that there wouldn't be problems, I'm just saying that we're already experiencing most of the consequences; but in a criminal environment that drains our resources and opportunities for coping with them.

[g++]

Would it surprise you that marijuana was currently Schedule I, while cocaine was Schedule II?

In other words cocaine can be currently (and is currently) prescribed for medical usage, while marijuana remains more illegal to use or possess, under federal law.

Thats cause cocaine used to be used in operating rooms right? Does it suprise me? No...but Im used to being told absurd things.

[g++]

I don't know, I don't think there are addicts out there who aren't getting it now because "it's illegal". All of the harder drugs could be made legal tomorrow and I wouldn't go running out to the "opium den" to try out crack!

I'm not saying that there wouldn't be problems, I'm just saying that we're already experiencing most of the consequences; but in a criminal environment that drains our resources and opportunities for coping with them.

I realize but cocaine would have a serious market as a party drug among normal people if it was readily available and legal. If you dont believe me check out how people dressed in the 80's and try to tell me they werent on cocaine.