What's new
By:

Woman gets 10 Years in Prison for Selling $30 Worth of Weed in Oklahoma

Millsapa said:
Now I've lost some respect for your position because of how you framed this argument.

She wasn't simply in possession of the substance (she was selling it...on two separate occasions), which means she is most likely a regular dealer.

Did they put her in jail because they thought she was harming herself...no that isn't the reasoning.

Taking more of ones hard earned money is less freedom since money is equal to time...time you can't get back.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was a pretty lazy response on my part. Yes, she is selling small amounts of weed. Yes, that does make a difference as far as the law is concerned. It makes very little difference as far as I'm concerned. If she's anything like the small-time dealers I've known she is buying relatively small quantities, maybe a few pounds or as little as a quarter-pound (4oz) and selling it in 1oz to 1/8oz quantities to people she knows well. She is probably not covering the expense of what she uses herself. Hardly what I'd consider deserving of hard time.
 
TroutBum said:
Let me rephrase: It is wrong in the eyes of the law. You know how I feel about weed, man, so get off my rim. As for fighting for my civil liberties, I am happy to do that. Very happy, actually. I hope to win the District 3 seat in the T-Ville city council this year because I feel like I/the citizens are being taken advantage of, and I want to be heard, dammit. I simply DON'T CARE about pot legislation like you do. I'm glad you're active, etc. but that doesn't change the fact that it is still a law at the moment, and breaking the law will get you thrown in jail. Boo F'ing Hoo for some stupid chick that can't even sell drugs properly.

I'm fine coming off as an idiot, that comes with just being me, but I am no fascist.
Click to expand...

I'm sometimes showing some Scot in my thinking. No I don't want to be paying for the jails to hold two million people for petty offenses. No I don't think cities should have restrictions on landlords that impair good management of property and make it hard to evict tenants who are cooking meth because the police won't act on a report, but if you throw them out yourself you are taken to court for violating rights the tenant actually gave up in signing the lease agreement saying they can't cook meth in my place.
 
TroutBum said:
Chalk me up as one who thinks it should be legalized. At the same time, chalk me up as one who says, "Well, sucks to suck, nimrod. Probably shouldn't have been breaking the law." I have a hard time feeling bad for this chick. She knew what she was doing was wrong, she knew the consequences, and she did it anyway. I think 30 years is beyond stupid, but it is what it is.

LiarLiar.jpg


"STOP BREAKING THE LAW, *** HOLE!"
Click to expand...

Sorry, I cannot respect the "the law is stupid but it is the law therefore the punishment is ok" position. It is logically awful, at least in a society where we value a concept of the punishment fitting the crime. If this were the case it was ok to send Rosa Parks to prison because she sat on an area of the bus that was deemed unfit for her to sit in. It was a stupid law, but hey, it was the law. Now before I hear the obvious retort I'm not comparing selling pot to sitting on a restricted area of a bus where the restriction is based on race. But the same "it's the law" principle applies.

Heck, it's one thing to believe that it should be a crime. It's another to believe that it's a crime worthy of 10 years in prison. I'd honestly have the same outrage over things I believe are criminal. If some bum stole a candy bar from a convenience store I'd be outraged over a 10 year prison sentence for it, even though I do agree his actions were wrong, they should be criminal, and some sort of punishment should be given out.
 
Nate505 said:
Sorry, I cannot respect the "the law is stupid but it is the law therefore the punishment is ok" position.
Click to expand...

Civil disobedience is a beautiful thing until you get busted. Thoreau forgot to mention what it's like to be prison raped after being arrested for standing up to the authorities.
 
Nobody is debating that there are not consequences to breaking the law. The debate is whether the consequences are just.

If I get held up by a mugger it's probably for the best that I give him my wallet. Not giving him my wallet is what I'd prefer, but I risk getting shot and overall it's not worth the risk. Doesn't make the mugger's actions correct just because he has the advantage of force.
 
Nate505 said:
If I get held up by a mugger it's probably for the best that I give him my wallet. Not giving him my wallet is what I'd prefer, but I risk getting shot and overall it's not worth the risk. Doesn't make the mugger's actions correct just because he has the advantage of force.
Click to expand...

That's the best analogy you could muster? I believe in you, try again.
 
Nate505 said:
Nobody is debating that there are not consequences to breaking the law. The debate is whether the consequences are just.

If I get held up by a mugger it's probably for the best that I give him my wallet. Not giving him my wallet is what I'd prefer, but I risk getting shot and overall it's not worth the risk. Doesn't make the mugger's actions correct just because he has the advantage of force.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't fight for your wallet?? What a puss.
 
Oh, and Gameface, I'm laughing probably harder than I should thinking about moon shiners during prohibition tweaking out about sanitizing the bottles. Not laughing at you, mind you. Just the thought of them trying to sanitize everything in black and white sped up film style...hahahaha. Yes, anything I picture that's old actually happened in black and white to me and in that sped up style, no idea what its called.

Second, did they really bother makin beer back then? Weren't they more about bath tubs o' the good ish?
 
JohnStockalypse said:
That's the best analogy you could muster? I believe in you, try again.
Click to expand...

The analogy is quite apt, whether you believe in me or not.

Law is not always correct just because it is the law. History has proven that time and time again. Anyone with power can dictate policy with the threat of imprisonment or violence or whatever, which is why you see women have no power in those crappy Muslim hell holes because the law gives them no rights. If they stand up for rights that most people in first world democracies believe in, they get thrown in jail. Or killed.
 
Nate505 said:
The analogy is quite apt, whether you believe in me or not.

Law is not always correct just because it is the law. History has proven that time and time again. Anyone with power can dictate policy with the threat of imprisonment or violence or whatever, which is why you see women have no power in those crappy Muslim hell holes because the law gives them no rights. If they stand up for rights that most people in first world democracies believe in, they get thrown in jail. Or killed.
Click to expand...
You do realize that the two largest Muslim countries in the world have had female presidents, right?
 
JohnStockalypse said:
Oh, and Gameface, I'm laughing probably harder than I should thinking about moon shiners during prohibition tweaking out about sanitizing the bottles. Not laughing at you, mind you. Just the thought of them trying to sanitize everything in black and white sped up film style...hahahaha. Yes, anything I picture that's old actually happened in black and white to me and in that sped up style, no idea what its called.

Second, did they really bother makin beer back then? Weren't they more about bath tubs o' the good ish?
Click to expand...

Yes, you're absolutely right and bring up an interesting point. Beer consumption declined dramatically during prohibition. Hard liquor consumption made up a MUCH larger portion of alcohol consumption. Instead of drinking something with 4-7% alcohol people were drinking stuff with 40% alcohol. Another example of the unintended consequence of this type of regulation. The shift towards hard liquor continued after prohibition ended.
 
Nate505 said:
The analogy is quite apt, whether you believe in me or not.

Law is not always correct just because it is the law. History has proven that time and time again. Anyone with power can dictate policy with the threat of imprisonment or violence or whatever, which is why you see women have no power in those crappy Muslim hell holes because the law gives them no rights. If they stand up for rights that most people in first world democracies believe in, they get thrown in jail. Or killed.
Click to expand...

Your analogy wasn't about doing something cuz it's the law, it was about doing something so you don't get shot. Women who don't wanna get raped shouldn't dress in revealing clothing either?

Anywho, things like civil rights I think make sense to fight with civil disobedience. Most things however should probably take alternative avenues.

I mean, if you don't like gun laws, I don't think a good way to fight them is buying a bunch of illegal guns. Likewise, if you don't like weed laws, I don't think it's a good idea to be a drug dealer to make your point.

However, if would be funny to see a "sit in" of sorts where a bunch of stupid hippies carry around giant weed plants...and then get beat with riot shields...Call of Duty style.
 
Last edited:
I think it's smart for them to keep the pot illegal. It forces people to make their own much safer drugs like meth or bath salts, or even just get the doctor to prescribe some painkillers to pop like tic-tacs. Keep up the good fight.
 
Last edited:
The War on Drugs, America's second and more destructive civil war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top