|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,825
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,825 |
Brad, so that I don't misunderstand your intemded position; is it your belief that the only deterrent to a legal adult selling alcohol or drugs to a minor or a parent permitting the use of alcohol and drugs to their minor children would be the parent's of the minor themselves. I'm on the stand I see.  And since you've converted this to a "for the children" issue to make it more debatable, when it was really a "beating a dead horse" issue, based on years of TWOD not doing chit for the children or the adults--Yep.
Too many people buy stuff they don't want, with money they don't have, to impress people they don't like!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 62,043
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 62,043 |
Real crimes involve actual victims. Possession and personal use, purchase or sale of items or substances are not real crimes.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
FWIW, I believe the above quote from TRH shifted the discussion. Anyways, I will never understand how a person/parent could believe that the only deterrent to underage possesion,(drugs/alcohol) or the sale of alcohol and drugs to minors, should only be the parents themselves, rather than a law deterring and punishing such actions.
You have now convinced me to certainty that such laws are clearly necessary.
The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.
William Arthur Ward
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 48,411
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 48,411 |
Jacques, real crimes are whatever the state defines as real crimes. Real in the sense that if you do the stated offense and are convicted of it, you can be fined or go to jail. And that's pretty damn real as far as I'm concerned.
Unless you're speaking in hypothets, or live in Barakistan.
I could take you on a ten minute drive that I think would convince you that personal drug use and sale is not a victimless crime. I agree that doesn't fully answer the issue of whether and to what extent we need prohibibition......but it ain't victimless, and I don't just mean the users.
Proudly representing oil companies, defense contractors, and firearms manufacturers since 1980. Because merchants of death need lawyers, too.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,825
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,825 |
That's why we need politicians that aren't "defining" so many real crimes. It looks to me like we had less victims before TWODs and I just don't mean druggies either!
Too many people buy stuff they don't want, with money they don't have, to impress people they don't like!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 73,096
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
OP
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 73,096 |
issac, I believe your scenario would be covered by the child endangerment statutes, please correct me if I am wrong Sir. +++++++++++++++++++++++ No, you're not wrong Terry. Those are part of the criminal stautory scheme. Child endangerment charges are misdemeanor to felony offenses( still criminal statutes) Of course, if aggravating circumstances occur as a consequence of such sale and use, well, you know what lies next! OK, then why do we need separate drug laws and such for those cases. It would seem that selling, procuring or giving to a minor would already be covered. I am serious about this, we have too many damn laws that attack the item rather than the use. That is where I am coming from on this issue.
George Orwell was a Prophet, not a novelist. Read 1984 and then look around you!
Old cat turd!
"Some men just need killing." ~ Clay Allison.
I am too old to fight but I can still pull a trigger. ~ Me
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 62,043
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 62,043 |
Because of the varying elements of proof and punishment ranges for specific offenses.
Let's say a certain child endangerment statute provided for a year in jail uopn conviction. Well, that might be suitable for a case where mom was drunk driving with her kid in the backseat without a seatbelt but not sufficient for the 19 year old who sells meth to a sophomore in HS who rams a row of cars in the school parking lot.
You need to be very careful as to what criminal charge you specifically wish to levy upon the alleged defendant Terry and the possible consequences and sentencing ranges once you do so. I'd bet you spent much of your time discussing with the other powers that be, beside yourself, as to what an alleged defendant should be charged with.
The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.
William Arthur Ward
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 17,278
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 17,278 |
Brad, so that I don't misunderstand your intemded position; is it your belief that the only deterrent to a legal adult selling alcohol or drugs to a minor or a parent permitting the use of alcohol and drugs to their minor children would be the parent's of the minor themselves. The issue surrounding minors is the fact that parents hold certain of their children's rights in trust until the children are old enough to take responsibility for the exercise of those rights themselves. One of those rights is the right to decide for oneself how one will be medicated. If a drug pusher sells heroin to a 13-year-old with her parents' permission, no one's rights have been violated and there's no justification for government to become involved. If a drug pusher sells heroin to a 13-year-old without her parents' permission, though, to the extent that the 13-year-old's right to self-medication is held in trust by her parents, he's violating that right. Theoretically the government could justifiably become involved, but it would be simpler, more effective, quicker, cheaper, and more honorable for the parents to address the problem themselves--by parenting: in this case probably the father, probably with an unannounced visit to the drug pusher involving a nice 12ga pump and a smattering of harsh language. But if the government did become involved, the charge would not be sales, possession, or ingestion of a product without government approval: it'd be something similar to poisoning: tricking somebody into ingesting a harmful substance without her consent. In the case of a 13-year-old, her right to choose what to ingest is held by her parents; they delegate it to her as they see fit. For example, they may consider her competent to choose whether to order green beans or broccoli; but most parents wouldn't consider a 13-year-old competent to choose whether or not to use heroin. If they don't delegate the right to her in the case of heroin, then she doesn't have the right; therefore no matter what she says she can't give consent. So there are perfectly reasonable ways to use a legal system to penalize the sale of heroin to minors, if you'd rather have the legal system parent your children than do it yourself, without criminalizing an inanimate substance, possession of property, or consensual business transactions.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain--that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." --Lysander Spooner, 1867
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 73,096
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
OP
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 73,096 |
Because of the varying elements of proof and punishment ranges for specific offenses.
Let's say a certain child endangerment statute provided for a year in jail uopn conviction. Well, that might be suitable for a case where mom was drunk driving with her kid in the backseat without a seatbelt but not sufficient for the 19 year old who sells meth to a sophomore in HS who rams a row of cars in the school parking lot.
You need to be very careful as to what criminal charge you specifically wish to levy upon the alleged defendant Terry and the possible consequences and sentencing ranges once you do so. I'd bet you spent much of your time discussing with the other powers that be, beside yourself, as to what an alleged defendant should be charged with. I spent many a session with the DA to determine what actual charges were to be place after I made an arrest via the uniform statutes. This would be based on the circumstance of the individual crime. Say I made an initial arrest for ADW because the actor shot but did not kill the victim, this got em in the clink. But then the follow up investigation showed that the actor had previously threatened the victim and actively searched them out and made the assault and the victim was unarmed or incapable of self-defense, the charge is now attempted murder 1.
George Orwell was a Prophet, not a novelist. Read 1984 and then look around you!
Old cat turd!
"Some men just need killing." ~ Clay Allison.
I am too old to fight but I can still pull a trigger. ~ Me
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,920 Likes: 52
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,920 Likes: 52 |
Hawkeye, you're talking in circles. You claim that no one said selling drugs to children is harmless and then you say to criminalize only those actions which foreseeably cause actual harm to an actual victim.
That foresseable harm would be the possibility of addiction, the certainty of impaired judgment, and all that can follow that.
Social pressure deterring a drug dealer? That's funny! You only think it's circular because you misunderstand. First, there MUST be real harm, i.e., a real victim (or the intention to do real harm to a real victim, as in the inchoate crimes). Second, that harm must have been reasonably foreseeable by the charged individual. If, for example, I don't know that little Johnny is deathly allergic to peanuts, and I offer him a package of them, resulting in his near death and hospitalization, I have not committed a crime no matter how much harm my actions have caused little Johnny, i.e., my actions were not the proximate cause of the injury since I lacked the knowledge of his vulnerability. On the other hand, if I hate little Johnny's folks, and I decide to get back at them by offering little Johnny some peanuts, which I know he's deathly allergic to, then (and this is the crucial part), if Johnny is actually harmed by consuming the peanuts, or would have been if someone hadn't intervened in time (i.e., suffers a real injury, or would have), then I've committed a serious crime. Furthermore, if I believed he was allergic to all peanuts, and didn't know that he was allergic only to Spanish peanuts, and I offered him Virginia peanuts, causing no harm at all (regardless of my intent to harm), then I have also committed no crime, my excuse being physical impossibility.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,920 Likes: 52
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,920 Likes: 52 |
The argument has really been about the drug war in general,
_____________________________
No it hasn't. The discussion had specifically centered around the very issue Joe addressed.
And Hawk, you most certainly implied it was harmless to sell drugs to kids. How else could you argue that it was merely a non-criminal financial transaction and there shouldn't be laws prohibiting it?
The waffling is amusing to witness, to say the least! No waffling here.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,920 Likes: 52
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,920 Likes: 52 |
The issue surrounding minors is the fact that parents hold certain of their children's rights in trust until the children are old enough to take responsibility for the exercise of those rights themselves. One of those rights is the right to decide for oneself how one will be medicated.
If a drug pusher sells heroin to a 13-year-old with her parents' permission, no one's rights have been violated and there's no justification for government to become involved.
If a drug pusher sells heroin to a 13-year-old without her parents' permission, though, to the extent that the 13-year-old's right to self-medication is held in trust by her parents, he's violating that right.
Theoretically the government could justifiably become involved, but it would be simpler, more effective, quicker, cheaper, and more honorable for the parents to address the problem themselves--by parenting: in this case probably the father, probably with an unannounced visit to the drug pusher involving a nice 12ga pump and a smattering of harsh language.
But if the government did become involved, the charge would not be sales, possession, or ingestion of a product without government approval: it'd be something similar to poisoning: tricking somebody into ingesting a harmful substance without her consent.
In the case of a 13-year-old, her right to choose what to ingest is held by her parents; they delegate it to her as they see fit. For example, they may consider her competent to choose whether to order green beans or broccoli; but most parents wouldn't consider a 13-year-old competent to choose whether or not to use heroin. If they don't delegate the right to her in the case of heroin, then she doesn't have the right; therefore no matter what she says she can't give consent.
So there are perfectly reasonable ways to use a legal system to penalize the sale of heroin to minors, if you'd rather have the legal system parent your children than do it yourself, without criminalizing an inanimate substance, possession of property, or consensual business transactions. Well said. I officially adopt this post as my official position on the drugs sold to children question.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 62,043
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 62,043 |
The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.
William Arthur Ward
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 9,341
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 9,341 |
Well what in the hell can the outcome be but what it is.
Some things can only be operated by the government. No matter how loud ya hollar about how much better private industry can do a job don't make it so.
If its a luxury then let private industry provide it.
If its a necessity then often only the government can provide it at the least cost with the most beneficial outcome.
The private prison industrial complex develpoed in the '80s and see what we got for our money. An increase in business while providing the least product at a higher cost to provide what...PROFIT.
The end of democracy, and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 9,101
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 9,101 |
Substitute the word "guns" for drugs and you'll see why your arguement fails.
Couldn't you take someone to the ninth ward and show them a lot of "gun victims" too?
Canada doesn't have a "War on drugs" - in fact up here, judges usually treat drug use as a a social problem - not a crime. We even have places where addicts can go to inject safely - and get counciling at the same time. We have alcoholics who get wine (rather than listerine or cooking wine or aftershave) - and with their wine, again, they get - you guessed it - counciling. Because what they are doing to themselves in an illness - not a crime.
As a result we have a small fraction of our population in jails - compared to the USA - and yet we have safer streets.
If the "War on Drugs" down your way is a good thing - I have to ask - how's it working for you so far?
Brian
Vernon BC Canada
"Nothing in life - can compare to seeing smiles on your children's faces."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 62,043
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 62,043 |
WOW...I just Googled "Canada's drug problems" and there is only 108 million articles with the most prevalent ones addressing the concern that "something must be done" or "it's time to get serious". I guess your Canada is different or you haven't a clue as to what goes on in places like Ontario as a whole or Toronto itself, to name a couple.
Last edited by isaac; 05/03/08.
The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.
William Arthur Ward
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 17,278
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 17,278 |
Well said. I officially adopt this post as my official position on the drugs sold to children question. You make me all warm and wiggly inside.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain--that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." --Lysander Spooner, 1867
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 17,278
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 17,278 |
Some things can only be operated by the government. To say something can only be operated by the government is equivalent to saying that it must be operated coercively because there isn't sufficient public demand or desire for it to enable it to be operated voluntarily--that is, a private company trying to do it would go bankrupt. --which is equivalent to saying that it's a waste of time and money and shouldn't be done in the first place. No matter how loud ya hollar about how much better private industry can do a job don't make it so. The thing private industry does better is that it doesn't do it if people don't want it enough to voluntarily pay what it costs to provide. If its a necessity then often only the government can provide it at the least cost with the most beneficial outcome. I defy you to provide a single example. The private prison industrial complex develpoed in the '80s and see what we got for our money. There's no such thing as a private prison. There are things that are called private prisons, but they're certainly not free-market affairs: they're coercively funded through government extortion.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain--that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." --Lysander Spooner, 1867
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 9,101
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 9,101 |
Check the stats for incarceration rates, in Canada vs. the U.S.A.
Especially for the "victimless" (ie: self abuse) crimes.
There is no nation in the free world anywhere close to the U.S.A. - and yet your "mean-streets" are as mean as any on earth.
So you think the "War on Drugs" is working do you Isaac?
Brian
Vernon BC Canada
"Nothing in life - can compare to seeing smiles on your children's faces."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,825
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,825 |
Hawkeye, I'm not going to waste a lot of time reading your Barack wanna be crap.
Simple question - do you understand and recognize any difference between selling little Johnny crack or selling him peanuts? By your statements they are one and the same.
Go sell that drivel somewhere else.
Have a good day man. In honor of personal freedom and the open squirrel season, I think I'll go put a hole through dinner's head.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 10,927
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 10,927 |
The issue surrounding minors is the fact that parents hold certain of their children's rights in trust until the children are old enough to take responsibility for the exercise of those rights themselves. One of those rights is the right to decide for oneself how one will be medicated.
If a drug pusher sells heroin to a 13-year-old with her parents' permission, no one's rights have been violated and there's no justification for government to become involved.
If a drug pusher sells heroin to a 13-year-old without her parents' permission, though, to the extent that the 13-year-old's right to self-medication is held in trust by her parents, he's violating that right.
Theoretically the government could justifiably become involved, but it would be simpler, more effective, quicker, cheaper, and more honorable for the parents to address the problem themselves--by parenting: in this case probably the father, probably with an unannounced visit to the drug pusher involving a nice 12ga pump and a smattering of harsh language.
But if the government did become involved, the charge would not be sales, possession, or ingestion of a product without government approval: it'd be something similar to poisoning: tricking somebody into ingesting a harmful substance without her consent.
In the case of a 13-year-old, her right to choose what to ingest is held by her parents; they delegate it to her as they see fit. For example, they may consider her competent to choose whether to order green beans or broccoli; but most parents wouldn't consider a 13-year-old competent to choose whether or not to use heroin. If they don't delegate the right to her in the case of heroin, then she doesn't have the right; therefore no matter what she says she can't give consent.
So there are perfectly reasonable ways to use a legal system to penalize the sale of heroin to minors, if you'd rather have the legal system parent your children than do it yourself, without criminalizing an inanimate substance, possession of property, or consensual business transactions. Well said. I officially adopt this post as my official position on the drugs sold to children question. Barak feeling the love said....You make me all warm and wiggly inside. Ladies, anyone following and/or agreeing with these two need to reevaluate their lives and really should seek counseling (or switch Dr's, cause the current one ain't working)....try defending the above in Anywhere, America and you shouldn't be surprised at the disbelieving looks from your audience.
All American
All the time
|
|
|
|
|
144 members (1lesfox, 44mc, 35, 7887mm08, 10Glocks, 300_savage, 14 invisible),
1,073
guests, and
943
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,193,845
Posts18,517,417
Members74,020
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
