PDA

View Full Version : How $31 of pot gave mom a 10-year-prison sentence




Anti Federalist
02-22-2011, 10:26 PM
No prior records, no prior convictions.

How $31 of pot gave mom a 10-year-prison sentence

http://newsok.com/how-31-of-pot-gave-mom-a-10-year-prison-sentence/article/3542585?custom_click=lead_story_title

Warrior_of_Freedom
02-22-2011, 10:30 PM
Sympathy for someone intentionally committing a crime? Yeah right.

kah13176
02-22-2011, 10:32 PM
I've heard of various attempted murder cases only getting 5 years...

VegasPatriot
02-22-2011, 10:43 PM
Sympathy for someone intentionally committing a crime? Yeah right.
-rep How about outrage for a ridiculous penalty for a victimless crime.

dblee
02-22-2011, 10:46 PM
Sympathy for someone intentionally committing a crime? Yeah right.

If you think punishing not only her, but forcing her husband and children to go 10 years without a wife and mother is a worthy punishment for selling a few grams of a harmless drug, then you have problems.

Warrior_of_Freedom
02-22-2011, 10:46 PM
-rep How about outrage for a ridiculous penalty for a victimless crime.

No one forced her to sell pot.

PermanentSleep
02-22-2011, 10:50 PM
No one forced her to sell pot.

No one forced anyone to buy it either, so I fail to see where a rights violation is that would justify it a legitimate crime in the first place.

Kotin
02-22-2011, 10:52 PM
Sympathy for someone intentionally committing a crime? Yeah right.

Wow.


Are you kidding??

MikeStanart
02-22-2011, 10:53 PM
Sympathy for someone intentionally committing a crime? Yeah right.

Ah, so your morals are bound by laws? Use your brain please.

jclay2
02-22-2011, 10:54 PM
No one forced her to sell pot.

Dude, its a plant! It is no more dangerous than alcohol, which is legal. So can you tell me who or what property was harmed in this crime (besides the victim and her family)?

MikeStanart
02-22-2011, 10:57 PM
Sympathy for someone intentionally committing a crime? Yeah right.

By your logic you'd think it's perfectly acceptable for China to lock people up for speaking out against their tyrranical government. It's the law, after all.

Warrior_of_Freedom
02-22-2011, 10:58 PM
Dude, its a plant! It is no more dangerous than alcohol, which is legal. So can you tell me who or what property was harmed in this crime (besides the victim and her family)?

It doesn't matter how much you rationalize it! She didn't NEED to sell pot. She gambled and lost.

Sola_Fide
02-22-2011, 10:59 PM
Sympathy for someone intentionally committing a crime? Yeah right.

"Warrior of Freedom" huh?

This must not include the freedom to put what you want in your body?

If the government declared alcohol illegal tomorrow, would you stop drinking it?

Sola_Fide
02-22-2011, 11:03 PM
It doesn't matter how much you rationalize it! She didn't NEED to sell pot. She gambled and lost.

So if the government made the sale oh Ho Hos illegal tomorrow, it would be alright to put people in prison for selling cupcakes? What is your standard for right and wrong? Government mandate? Then you are a statist.

specsaregood
02-22-2011, 11:04 PM
No one forced her to sell pot.

FTA:


Spottedcrow was unemployed and without a stable residence when arrested, the report states. The family lost their Oklahoma City home for not paying bills.

“When she needed money … this is the avenue she chose rather than finding legitimate employment,” the report states. “The defendant does not appear remorseful … and she makes justifications for her actions.”

Being able to put food on the table and a roof over your kids heads is a helluva motivator sometimes.

Brooklyn Red Leg
02-22-2011, 11:05 PM
This is the kind of asstarded logic that has gotten our country to the brink....

MikeStanart
02-22-2011, 11:07 PM
FTA:

Being able to put food on the table and a roof over your kids heads is a helluva motivator sometimes.

I completely agree with your point, but lets not allow Warrior_of_Freedom to set the conversation. Lets focus on his premise that if something is against the law, it's wrong. There lies the fundamental flaw in his logic.

jclay2
02-22-2011, 11:08 PM
It doesn't matter how much you rationalize it! She didn't NEED to sell pot. She gambled and lost.


Troll, who was harmed by this "crime" other than herself and her family?

Edit: and your name is "Warrior of Freedom". What a joke.

jclay2
02-22-2011, 11:10 PM
I completely agree with your point, but lets not allow Warrior_of_Freedom to set the conversation. Lets focus on his premise that if something is against the law, it's wrong. There lies the fundamental flaw in his logic.

That is true.

whoisjohngalt
02-22-2011, 11:37 PM
Coffee is a drug, and you have a picture of it as your avatar. They should put you in jail Warrior, for advocating drug use. No one forced you to do it.

Bruno
02-22-2011, 11:42 PM
It doesn't matter how much you rationalize it! She didn't NEED to sell pot. She gambled and lost.

At the very least you should be outraged our government spends on average at least $30,000 per year, for a cost of upwards of $300,000, to imprison her for posessing plant matter deemed evil by the state.

Warrior_of_Freedom
02-22-2011, 11:47 PM
Coffee is a drug, and you have a picture of it as your avatar. They should put you in jail Warrior, for advocating drug use. No one forced you to do it.
Coffee isn't outlawed and I'm not dealing illegal coffee beans intentionally when I know the consequences. Just because someone thinks something shouldn't be against the law doesn't mean the law doesn't affect them. It's not like pot being illegal is against freedom of speech.

Bruno
02-22-2011, 11:47 PM
"First they came for the pot smokers, and I did nothing, because I did not smoke pot"

...yet I considered myself a Warrior of Freedom.

Warrior_of_Freedom
02-22-2011, 11:48 PM
"First they came for the pot smokers, and I did nothing, because I did not smoke pot"

...yet I considered myself a Warrior of Freedom.

You don't need to smoke pot to live. You don't need to sell pot to make a living. This event was completely avoidable.

Sola_Fide
02-22-2011, 11:54 PM
You don't need to smoke pot to live. You don't need to sell pot to make a living. This event was completely avoidable.

What gives a government agency the right to decide what people can peacefully do with their own property?

Don't you understand that the prison-industrial complex/drug war is just a way for government to control you and steal from you???

Bruno
02-22-2011, 11:57 PM
You don't need to smoke pot to live. You don't need to sell pot to make a living. This event was completely avoidable.

So only that which is necessary to live is to be legal? Interesting concept.

You must believe strongly in prosecuting consensual crimes and the power of the state to regulate them at will.

May I suggest this book, so you can better understand the freedom we should have to commit consensual crimes as adults. Perhaps you could be a warrior for freedom for adults to choose, instead of advocating for their arrest.

http://mcwilliams.com/books/aint/toc.htm

http://i54.tinypic.com/10zyfz4.jpg

CONTENTS


Front

AUTHOR'S NOTES

PART I

THE BASIC PREMISE

An Overview

What Are Consensual Crimes?

Separation of Society and State

Personal Morality Versus Governmental Morality

Relationship
PART II

WHY LAWS AGAINST CONSENSUAL
ACTIVITIES ARE NOT A GOOD IDEA

It's Un-American

Laws against Consensual Activities
Are Unconstitutional

Laws against Consensual Activities Violate
the Separation of Church and State,
Threatening the Freedom of and from Religion

Laws against Consensual Activities Are Opposed
to the Principles of Private Property,
Free Enterprise, Capitalism, and the Open Market

Enforcing Laws against Consensual Activities
is Very Expensive

Enforcing Laws against Consensual Activities
Destroys People's Lives

Intermission to Part II

Consensual Crimes Encourage Real Crimes

Consensual Crimes Corrupt Law Enforcement

The Cops Can't Catch 'Em; the Courts Can't
Handle 'Em; the Prisons Can't Hold 'Em

Consensual Crimes Promote Organized Crime

Consensual Crimes Corrupt the
Freedom of the Press

Laws against Consensual Activities
Teach Irresponsibility

Laws against Consensual Activities Are
Too Randomly Enforced to Be Either
a Deterrent or Fair

Laws against Consensual Activities
Discriminate against the Poor, Minorities, and Women

Problems Sometimes Associated with
Consensual Activities Cannot Be Solved
While They Are Crimes

Laws against Consensual Activities Create
a Society of Fear, Hatred, Bigotry, Oppression,
and Conformity; a Culture Opposed to
Personal Expression, Diversity, Freedom,
Choice and Growth

PART III

A CLOSER LOOK AT THE CONSENSUAL CRIMES

A Closer Look at the Consensual Crimes

Gambling

Drugs


How and Why Drugs Became Illegal


Opiates


Cocaine, Crack, Amphetamines


Psychedelics


Marijuana

Religious and Psychologically Therapeutic
Use of Drugs

Regenerative Use of Drugs and
Other Unorthodox Medical Practices

Prostitution

Pornography, Obscenity, Etc.


The Problem with Pornography


The Problem with Violence


The Problem with Censorship


The F-WORD

Violations of Marriage; Adultry, Fornication
Cohabitation, Bigamy, and Polygamy

Homosexuality

Unconventional Religious Practices

Unpopular Religious Practices

Suicide and Assisted Suicide

The Titanic Laws: Public Drunkenness, Loitering,
Vagrancy, Seat Belts, Motorcycle Helmets,
Public Nudity, Transvestism

PART IV

SIX CHAPTERS IN SEARCH OF A SHORTER BOOK

The Enlightenment or We Wer So Much Older Then;
We're Younger Than That Now

Prohibition: A Lesson in the Futility (and Danger) of Prohibiting

`

What Jesus and the Bible Really Said about Consensual Crimes

Old Testament Admonitions

Jesus of Nazareth and Consensual Crime

Jesus on Sex and Marriage

Jesus and the Separation of Church and State

His Master's Voice?

Jerry & Pat

Traditional Family Values

Putting the "Problem" in Perspective

Hypocrites

PART V

WHAT TO DO?

Education, Not Legislation

A Call to My Media Brethren

Protective Technology

Hemp for Victory

A State-By-State Look at Consensual Crime

We Must All Hang Together

The Politics of Change

About the Author

Acknowledgments




Copyright © 1996 Peter McWilliams & Prelude Press

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anti Federalist
02-23-2011, 12:23 AM
So only that which is necessary to live is to be legal? Interesting concept.

That which is not required, is prohibited.

ClayTrainor
02-23-2011, 12:33 AM
Sympathy for someone intentionally committing a crime? Yeah right.

She didn't steal from anyone. She didn't aggress against anyone. She was selling some agriculture for a living to voluntary customers, and was then kidnapped by men with guns, and thrown into a cage for 10 years.

Who committed the crime? Who's the victim?

Warrior_of_Freedom
02-23-2011, 01:04 AM
At the very least you should be outraged our government spends on average at least $30,000 per year, for a cost of upwards of $300,000, to imprison her for posessing plant matter deemed evil by the state.

It's her own damn fault just like the case with the woman and the juvenile who killed himself. What else did she expect from the police? The only difference is this woman got caught by police, the other woman snitched on her own child. I am not saying whether the law is right or wrong, but it's stupid to make such a big gamble over some profit.

Bruno
02-23-2011, 01:12 AM
It's her own damn fault just like the case with the woman and the juvenile who killed himself. What else did she expect from the police? The only difference is this woman got caught by police, the other woman snitched on her own child. I am not saying whether the law is right or wrong, but it's stupid to make such a big gamble over some profit.

Why did you both to quote me when you completely ignore what I said?

In my post you quote, 'm not saying whether is right or wrong (it is wrong, however :) ), but that you should be outraged at spending $300,000 to combat a "crime" of $31 (in which the $31 was a consensual action between two adults (which shouldn't be illegal if you value freedom).

Andrew-Austin
02-23-2011, 01:54 AM
It's her own damn fault just like the case with the woman and the juvenile who killed himself. What else did she expect from the police? The only difference is this woman got caught by police, the other woman snitched on her own child. I am not saying whether the law is right or wrong, but it's stupid to make such a big gamble over some profit.

You are still basically saying "she deserves it", which makes no fucking sense, especially sense you haven't defended the prohibition on pot.

If I tell you I am going to pop you in the face if you take a step forward, and then you do so and I pop you in the face, it would be pretty ludicrous for an onlooker to say you deserved being punched in the face. "Haha he is so stupid, he stepped forward, therefore never mind what happens to him, Andrew-Ausitn couldn't help but bop him". It sounds like a joke with this example I used, but my point is it is baselessly blaming the victim.

Selling pot is not wrong, therefor she did nothing wrong. And really you can only say in hindsight that her actions were against her own interests. Thanks Captain Hindsight.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rmUZQrvF5o

CaliforniaMom
02-23-2011, 01:59 AM
My dad's friend got a 10 year sentence for possession of a large quantity pot on his boat decades ago. He was raped in prison repeatedly, and contracted Aids from the rapists and is now dead from the Aids.
Basically he suffered a death sentence for having some pot.

guitarlifter
02-23-2011, 02:07 AM
This judge is outrageous.


Former Kingfisher County Judge Susie Pritchett, who retired in December, said the women were conducting “an extensive operation” and included children in the business.

“It was a way of life for them,” Pritchett said.

“Considering these circumstances, I thought it was lenient. By not putting the grandmother in prison, she is able to help take care of the children.”

Lenient? What on earth could he think of as proper? Fining these women a single CENT or even putting them in handcuffs and letting them go is too far. I personally know the detrimental effects of getting fucked by the unconstitutional dick of the law in drug cases, and it's not fun. Thank God I didn't get the sentence she got, but I still paid dearly in many ways: paid thousands in fines, lost scholarships and grants, mandatory community service (even though I already do a lot of it by my own free will), mandatory psychological counseling (TWICE!), a record, name was in the paper when my father is well-known pastor in town, was incarcerated 2 weeks, lost my license for 6 months, was on probation for 6 months-- you name it, and it happened to me, all because of steroid possession.

And it drives me nuts when people think that they are carrying out the will of God by doing this shit. Learn some proper theology, people!

jclay2
02-23-2011, 02:12 AM
This judge is outrageous.



Lenient? What on earth could he think of as proper? Fining these women a single CENT or even putting them in handcuffs and letting them go is too far. I personally know the detrimental effects of getting fucked by the unconstitutional dick of the law in drug cases, and it's not fun. Thank God I didn't get the sentence she got, but I still paid dearly in many ways: paid thousands in fines, lost scholarships and grants, mandatory community service (even though I already do a lot of it by my own free will), mandatory psychological counseling (TWICE!), a record, name was in the paper when my father is well-known pastor in town, was incarcerated 2 weeks, lost my license for 6 months, was on probation for 6 months-- you name it, and it happened to me, all because of steroid possession.

And it drives me nuts when people think that they are carrying out the will of God by doing this shit. Learn some proper theology, people!

Sorry to hear about that man. Maybe some day this nonsense will stop? And to think that hundreds of thousands of police benefit off of this system. Just aint right.

devil21
02-23-2011, 02:27 AM
Sympathy for someone intentionally committing a crime? Yeah right.

Did you steal someone's member name? Surely you can't call yourself a warrior of freedom while supporting the war on drugs. Maybe you should change your name to Warrior_on_Freedom. Jeez. False advertising.

speciallyblend
02-23-2011, 02:43 AM
Did you steal someone's member name? Surely you can't call yourself a warrior of freedom while supporting the war on drugs. Maybe you should change your name to Warrior_on_Freedom. Jeez. False advertising.

warrior on freedom is to drugged up on coffee!!

Sola_Fide
02-23-2011, 02:48 AM
warrior on freedom is to drugged up on coffee!!

Lock him in a rape cell! That'll teach him not to harm society by taking caffeine!

LibertyRevolution
02-23-2011, 03:09 AM
warrior_of_freedom just received my first dose of NEGATIVE rep.
-Rep. Just because there is a law against something does not make it wrong.

If she wants to grow a plant, or even sell clippings from that plant, the government should have no goddamn say about it.

P.S. I know people that have been caught with sale of more than 4oz of pot, on more than 1 occasion, that did not even get 1 day in jail.
She really should have spent the 30-50K on a good lawyer like my friend did, then she would not be in jail.

The system is very corrupt.
A friend of mine had to serve 30 days for getting in a fight, yet I have gotten off on multiple felony counts.
Its all about how much $ you have to buy a lawyer that is friends with the judge and prosecutor.

speciallyblend
02-23-2011, 03:14 AM
warrior_of_freedom just received my first dose of NEGATIVE rep.
-Rep. Just because there is a law against something does not make it wrong.

If she wants to grow a plant, or even sell clippings from that plant, the government should have no goddamn say about it.

a juror i know was able to stand up against the law and address the defendant and get the case dismissed! beautiful!!

daviddee
02-23-2011, 03:38 AM
...

BamaAla
02-23-2011, 04:54 AM
It's ridiculous; I think we all understand that. The laws need, nay HAVE, to change. With that said, Warrior_Of_Freedom is catching hell for being right; the woman sewed her own seeds of destruction. If you have 4 small children, why on Earth would you commit a felony that you know could take you away from them for a decade? She willfully committed a felonious act and she is now paying the piper. I fell horrible for her children, but she gets zero sympathy from me.

Sola_Fide
02-23-2011, 04:58 AM
I feel sympathy for any victim of oppression. People who suffer at the hands of this police state ARE victims of violent oppression.

amy31416
02-23-2011, 05:25 AM
You don't need to smoke pot to live. You don't need to sell pot to make a living. This event was completely avoidable.

You know what other situation involving pot is completely avoidable? Medical marijuana. If you had a family member suffering through chemo, chronic pain, MS, etc., and they had no other options that worked for them, would you let them suffer, or would you break the law to help them?

If you had done so, would you deserve 10 years in prison for it, where you would potentially be raped, physically harmed, have to leave your loved one (who needs you) and come out a different person due to the experience?

No nitpicking on selling vs. using vs. providing for another person for medical reasons. Illegal is illegal.

awake
02-23-2011, 05:38 AM
Vices are not crimes (http://www.lysanderspooner.org/VicesAreNotCrimes.htm); the actual crime is in criminalizing and prosecuting those with vices.

BamaAla
02-23-2011, 05:40 AM
You know what other situation involving pot is completely avoidable? Medical marijuana. If you had a family member suffering through chemo, chronic pain, MS, etc., and they had no other options that worked for them, would you let them suffer, or would you break the law to help them?

If you had done so, would you deserve 10 years in prison for it, where you would potentially be raped, physically harmed, have to leave your loved one (who needs you) and come out a different person due to the experience?

No nitpicking on selling vs. using vs. providing for another person for medical reasons. Illegal is illegal.


An overly emotional hypothetical situation is not needed to illustrate the event in question. The woman willfully committed a felony in the room and with the help of her children not to ease someone's intense suffering but to have some pocket money. Warrior_Of_Freedom might have come off as harsh, but he's absolutely right; she played with fire and got burned.

amy31416
02-23-2011, 05:45 AM
An overly emotional hypothetical situation is not needed to illustrate the event in question. The woman willfully committed a felony in the room and with the help of her children not to ease someone's intense suffering but to have some pocket money. Warrior_Of_Freedom might have come off as harsh, but he's absolutely right; she played with fire and got burned.

That specific example was one that I, personally, had to contemplate. Hope you're never in the same boat. Hope you're never broke and have four kids to feed either.

And no, Warrior_Of_Freedom didn't come off as harsh, he came off as asinine in his support for the state locking a person up for 10 years for such a "crime." So do you.

In a reasonable world, you two have to pay for it, and you two have to be the ones to look her and her family in the eye every day when you rip her away from them and put her in a cage for 10 years.

And you never answered the question--what would you do in that scenario?

BamaAla
02-23-2011, 06:00 AM
That specific example was one that I, personally, had to contemplate. Hope you're never in the same boat. Hope you're never broke and have four kids to feed either.

And no, Warrior_Of_Freedom didn't come off as harsh, he came off as asinine in his support for the state locking a person up for 10 years for such a "crime." So do you.

In a reasonable world, you two have to pay for it, and you two have to be the ones to look her and her family in the eye every day when you rip her away from them and put her in a cage for 10 years.

And you never answered the question--what would you do in that scenario?

First off, I don't support her jail sentence. I merely have no sympathy for the woman and agreed with WOF's general assessment that she brought the pain on herself.

I hope I'm never in either of those situations either; however, they aren't even close to comparable. If she was legitimately destitute, there are literally dozens of available government programs, private programs, and churches that help with that very thing. She didn't pursue any of the legal avenues to address her problems; she resorted to a known felony with her children in the room willfully putting the entire group in danger. The fact that she bypassed all of the appropriate means to help her family in favor of a solution that could potentially get her locked up for a decade is what is asinine not my calling a spade a spade.

mrsat_98
02-23-2011, 06:02 AM
The key to why she got ten years is in the presentence investigation. She did this to her self irregardless of whether or not the War on Drugs is right or wrong. The fact is we have a war on drugs and she showed no "remorse for her crime" and without fear and respect for the military tribunal in which she was a captured enemy combatant with effectively a biological weapon that she was offering to the People. She was breaching the peace.

Makes you think, doesn't it.

dean.engelhardt
02-23-2011, 06:07 AM
Sympathy for someone intentionally committing a crime? Yeah right.

Once we start accepting someone's else's civil rights being violated, (eighth amendment), how long until it comes to your or my door step.

amy31416
02-23-2011, 06:11 AM
First off, I don't support her jail sentence. I merely have no sympathy for the woman and agreed with WOF's general assessment that she brought the pain on herself.

I hope I'm never in either of those situations either; however, they aren't even close to comparable. If she was legitimately destitute, there are literally dozens of available government programs, private programs, and churches that help with that very thing. She didn't pursue any of the legal avenues to address her problems; she resorted to a known felony with her children in the room willfully putting the entire group in danger. The fact that she bypassed all of the appropriate means to help her family in favor of a solution that could potentially get her locked up for a decade is what is asinine not my calling a spade a spade.

Good enough. YOU, he and others who support such draconian measures can feel free to pony up and pay for it (justification for such asinine laws and sentencing IS support, whether you like it or not).

Bet if you had someone tailing you, you've broken the law in some fashion many times over as well. Perhaps you're even a felon. Most of us have and do break laws regularly, some knowingly, some unknowingly.

BamaAla
02-23-2011, 06:15 AM
Good enough. YOU, he and others who support such draconian measures can feel free to pony up and pay for it (justification for such asinine laws and sentencing IS support, whether you like it or not).

Bet if you had someone tailing you, you've broken the law in some fashion many times over as well. Perhaps you're even a felon. Most of us have and do break laws regularly, some knowingly, some unknowingly.


I haven't one time justified or supported the law; I have only addressed the sympathetic outpouring toward this woman and the unnecessary attacks on WOF, so I would appreciate it if you would refrain from putting words into my mouth.

amy31416
02-23-2011, 06:19 AM
I haven't one time justified or supported the law; I have only addressed the sympathetic outpouring toward this woman and the unnecessary attacks on WOF, so I would appreciate it if you would refrain from putting words into my mouth.

Where's the WAAAAAMBULANCE when you need it?

If you support (and you do) locking this woman up, and criticize those who feel it's wrong and are sympathetic towards the woman and her family, I'm not going to "handle" you with kid gloves when you can't take reciprocal criticism.

BamaAla
02-23-2011, 06:31 AM
Where's the WAAAAAMBULANCE when you need it?

If you support (and you do) locking this woman up, and criticize those who feel it's wrong and are sympathetic towards the woman and her family, I'm not going to "handle" you with kid gloves when you can't take reciprocal criticism.

If you want to have sympathy for a woman that displayed zero regard for her responsibility to her children while holding me in contempt for merely pointing it out, have at it, but to claim that I support her sentence by doing so is a bald faced lie.

AtomiC
02-23-2011, 06:53 AM
If you want to have sympathy for a woman that displayed zero regard for her responsibility to her children while holding me in contempt for merely pointing it out, have at it, but to claim that I support her sentence by doing so is a bald faced lie.

Who did this woman harm by selling some marijuana?

Danke
02-23-2011, 06:53 AM
The key to why she got ten years is in the presentence investigation. She did this to her self irregardless of whether or not the War on Drugs is right or wrong. The fact is we have a war on drugs and she showed no "remorse for her crime" and without fear and respect for the military tribunal in which she was a captured enemy combatant with effectively a biological weapon that she was offering to the People. She was breaching the peace.

Makes you think, doesn't it.

Varsity level.

Danke
02-23-2011, 06:56 AM
Who did this woman harm by selling some marijuana?


CIA funding?

Pfizer, Merck, etc?

loveshiscountry
02-23-2011, 06:57 AM
It's her own damn fault just like the case with the woman and the juvenile who killed himself. What else did she expect from the police? The only difference is this woman got caught by police, the other woman snitched on her own child. I am not saying whether the law is right or wrong, but it's stupid to make such a big gamble over some profit.

I agree the risk wasn't worth it. If she could have made 10k a month then I would have more sympathy out of respect for making it worthwhile.

But as far as going to jail or a even a small fine, that's idiotic. The government has no right to tell someone what they can or can't put into their body. THAT is what the focus should be. Our loss of rights and not because someone wasn't taught risk/reward.

Maybe the penalty should be larger as the amount gets smaller. That way we can legislate against stupid. ;)

Danke
02-23-2011, 06:58 AM
Can you imagine the penalty if she was selling raw milk!?!?!

fisharmor
02-23-2011, 06:59 AM
I merely have no sympathy for the woman and agreed with WOF's general assessment that she brought the pain on herself...
there are literally dozens of available government programs

Ok, so let's recap.
According to you:
1) She ought to have "brought the pain" on society first, using state-sanctioned redistributionist theft, because it is "legal"
2) She is wrong to have tried to take matters into her own hands, because it is "illegal"
3) We are to have no sympathy for those who forgo state redistributionist theft schemes in favor of taking matters into their own hands.

So... um... what are you doing here?

Koz
02-23-2011, 07:01 AM
I have read this entire post and locking that woman up doesn't change one thing in this country except her kids will be without thier mother for 10 yrs. You can still walk into any high school in Amerikkka and buy pot from a 15 year old in 5 minutes. This is not a free country.

NYgs23
02-23-2011, 07:11 AM
The thing is, every calorie of energy BamaAla and Warrior of Freedom expend condemning her for "being stupid" is a calorie of energy not expended on condemning her oppressors.

Yes, it's probably true she behaved irrationally and self-destructively given the OPPRESSIVE SYSTEM she was living under. Understood. So would a woman in 16th century Germany who went around telling everyone she was a witch and ended up burned at the stake. Nonetheless, her executors are the ones who should be condemned, not her.

I advise against selling drugs under the current system. It's foolish to put yourself in danger by doing that. But my anger is reserved for the unjust laws that create the danger.

Furthermore, it's been argued (http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594032556) that the state's laws are currently so numerous and so vague that almost everyone could be found guilty of some felony, given a sufficiently creative prosecutor.

HOLLYWOOD
02-23-2011, 08:08 AM
For those that condone this oppressive zealous actions of government... what you don't see is this "Borg System" that continues to grow, that continues to pass more and more laws to control the people through all their 'Indoctrination propaganda operations'.

Until they start taking money out of YOUR pocket directly to enforce the "polished" totalitarian state, you will never see the light of government's irrationality and it's oppression on the people. Everyone else is wrong and government is right.... UNTIL, it effects YOU.

The posters that brought up the cost or similes for other so-called state contraband... BINGO!

CountryboyRonPaul
02-23-2011, 08:18 AM
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

The judge broke a higher law than this woman did.

HOLLYWOOD
02-23-2011, 08:24 AM
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

The judge broke a higher law than this woman did.

Yes indeed, the 8th amendment is completely ignored these days. Along with the 4th and 1st/2nd.

Slowly but surely, whittling-away our rights, which are barely upheld... unless you're wealthy, politically connected, or famous.

dean.engelhardt
02-23-2011, 09:10 AM
Yes indeed, the 8th amendment is completely ignored these days. Along with the 4th and 1st/2nd.

Slowly but surely, whittling-away our rights, which are barely upheld... unless you're wealthy, politically connected, or famous.

Under current law anyone one of us can be pulled over on our way to work this morning; be told we are suspected of illegal drug activity; have all our pocket money and vehicle confiscated; and be left on the side of the road walking. Our only recourse would be to rebuy our vehicle back in a auction.

The constitution needs to be legalized again

Pericles
02-23-2011, 10:51 AM
Edit: and your name is "Warrior of Freedom". What a joke.
I think Donald Rumsfeld has joined the board.

johnrocks
02-23-2011, 11:05 AM
Sympathy for someone intentionally committing a crime? Yeah right.

"Crime" is anything government says is a "crime"; from pot smoking to owning a gun. If government passed a law that stated we had to crow like a rooster each morning at 6 a.m.;guess what; if you didn't do your best "Foghorn" impression....you'd be a criminal, "Warrior of Freedom"..

payme_rick
02-23-2011, 11:40 AM
Wow, when did RPFs become a place where we side with tyrannical laws and not freedom in America?

Maybe the lady is stupid for taking this risk, but how can a liberty and freedom loving poster here on RPF not sympothize with a woman who is going to spend 10 years in prison because like the rest of us, she is not truely free... Isn't that what we're here for? To shout down tyranny?

I sense some posers here...

amy31416
02-23-2011, 11:56 AM
Can you imagine the penalty if she was selling raw milk!?!?!

Shoot the dogs first, scare the children, confiscate the cows and ask questions later! She done broke the law...intentionally! Lock her up for life! No sympathy! No quarter! She's a retardo-outlaw who was itchin' for a gov't slap-down.

BamaAla
02-23-2011, 02:12 PM
Who did this woman harm by selling some marijuana?

Her children.


Ok, so let's recap.
According to you:
1) She ought to have "brought the pain" on society first, using state-sanctioned redistributionist theft, because it is "legal"

If she wanted to be there to raise her fucking kids, yes.


2) She is wrong to have tried to take matters into her own hands, because it is "illegal"

Yes. There are almost unlimited ways she could have addressed her situation that don't involve jail time. She could have made more money, gotten some exercise, helped the planet, and stayed out of jail if she would have gotten her ass out and collected scraps or cans.



3) We are to have no sympathy for those who forgo state redistributionist theft schemes in favor of taking matters into their own hands.

You can sympathize with whomever you wish, but I will never share sympathy with or shed a tear for someone who abandons their children; furthermore, Your characterization of her taking matters into her own hands as if she did some noble deed is ludicrous.


So... um... what are you doing here?

Same thing everyone else is: supporting Ron Paul. Why; are you the ideology purity tester that will level the "that's not libertarian enough" charge at me?


... Maybe the lady is stupid for taking this risk, but how can a liberty and freedom loving poster here on RPF not sympothize with a woman who is going to spend 10 years in prison because like the rest of us, she is not truely free... Isn't that what we're here for? To shout down tyranny? ...

Because more important to me than shouting at the top of my lungs my disdain for the man is responsibility for four innocent children. I feel sorry for the children who will have no mother for the next ten years; I can sympathize with their upcoming struggle and emotions, but I hold the mother in the lowest of regard. Her responsibility was to her children and she ignored that fact.

Tonewah
02-23-2011, 02:22 PM
You don't need to smoke pot to live. You don't need to sell pot to make a living. This event was completely avoidable.

Really? Really-Really? Never read Bastiat? Never read Locke? Never read Jefferson?

If you had any point, it should have been that when you choose to actively violate unjust laws, there may very well be negative consequences. That doesn't IN ANY WAY justify those consequences, and hopefully, it will attract NEGATIVE attention to the law that you were prosecuted under. Your 'she got what she deserved' attitude is wrong-headed and hurts the liberty movement.

dannno
02-23-2011, 02:23 PM
Sympathy for someone intentionally committing a crime? Yeah right.

What crime? I don't see a crime :confused:

I do see a non-crime being labeled as a crime by a bunch of criminals.. that's about it..

dannno
02-23-2011, 02:26 PM
You don't need to smoke pot to live.

Uhh, some people DO need to smoke pot to live, and none of that is anybody's business but theirs anyway.

fisharmor
02-23-2011, 02:57 PM
If she wanted to be there to raise her fucking kids, yes.

OK - so now you presume to be a better judge of parenting, too. Let's remember that your point is that she needs to be raising her kids for more than a sentence, shall we?


Yes. There are almost unlimited ways she could have addressed her situation that don't involve jail time. She could have made more money, gotten some exercise, helped the planet, and stayed out of jail if she would have gotten her ass out and collected scraps or cans.

You couldn't remember for a single sentence?
If the object is to raise her kids, how is she to do that when she's spending her entire day rummaging through dumpsters for about 70 cents worth of aluminum per hour?
Unless you contend perhaps that her children should be doing it with her?
So, your solution to her supposed bad parenting is either to leave her children while she dumpster dives, or have them diving with her, right?
I'm gonna state this again: collecting cans is nowhere near as profitable as selling pot - no way. Recycling aluminum isn't worth the gas you burn to drive it to the center, so you belie a real ignorance of some basic economics here.


You can sympathize with whomever you wish, but I will never share sympathy with or shed a tear for someone who abandons their children; furthermore, Your characterization of her taking matters into her own hands as if she did some noble deed is ludicrous.

It is noble, absolutely.
Whereas you have consigned her to digging through garbage and possibly contracting diseases for a couple pennies, I recognize what she was doing for what it is.
She was running a business.
Moreover, she was running the business that maximized her profits - thus, presumably, enabling her to spend maximum time with her kids.
Drug dealing represents several of America's best characteristics.
It represents taking calculated risks supplying goods to willing buyers for potential profits.
She calculated her risk incorrectly.

Most business owners would simply go broke and have to start over.

This is one of the only ones where one needs to calculate the risk at a total ruination of one's life, children and home taken away, and never being able to work again.
I can understand if she didn't exactly get that that was the risk involved.
I and I totally understand that the only reason it is the risk involved is because there is still, unfortunately, no shortage of statist pigs showing up on internet fora to defend ruining the lives of business owners.


Same thing everyone else is: supporting Ron Paul. Why; are you the ideology purity tester that will level the "that's not libertarian enough" charge at me?
You're doing a great job without me.


Because more important to me than shouting at the top of my lungs my disdain for the man is responsibility for four innocent children. I feel sorry for the children who will have no mother for the next ten years; I can sympathize with their upcoming struggle and emotions, but I hold the mother in the lowest of regard. Her responsibility was to her children and she ignored that fact.

Here it is! Everybody, say it together:
IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!!

acptulsa
02-23-2011, 03:03 PM
No one forced her to sell pot.

She's an Indian, probably a Creek. Someone forced her ancestors to adapt to our silly-assed system. Better we'd have listened to Thomas Jefferson and learned more from their system. Then maybe we wouldn't persecute our own for doing no one but the pharmaceuticals one bit of harm.

acptulsa
02-23-2011, 03:06 PM
Don't you understand that the prison-industrial complex/drug war is just a way for government to control you and steal from you???

Unfortunately, this is probably the big deal. Some people in these small towns get picked more by who wants their land than by whether or not they're any different in doing these things than 40+% of their neighbors. After all, lawyers are expensive. Sad but true.

Wish I could report that people have stopped dreaming up ways to get Indians off their ancestral lands, but... Would at least be nice if the new methods, if not made outright illegal, would at least not involve using laws as a lever to do it.

CountryboyRonPaul
02-23-2011, 03:10 PM
Here it is! Everybody, say it together:
IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!!

The irony is, the judge increased her sentence...

For her children!




The two women were arrested for drug distribution and because Spottedcrow's children were in the home, an additional charge of possession of a dangerous substance in the presence of a minor was added.


That should help her become a better parent!

What would she do without the state to aid in giving these children a healthy relationship with their mother for the next 10 years?

mac_hine
02-23-2011, 03:14 PM
Sympathy for someone intentionally committing a crime? Yeah right.


Reflections on the
Prison Industrial Complex http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Prison_System/Masked_Racism_ADavis.html

Imprisonment has become the response of first resort to far too many of the social problems that burden people who are ensconced in poverty. These problems often are veiled by being conveniently grouped together under the category "crime" and by the automatic attribution of criminal behavior to people of color. Homelessness, unemployment, drug addiction, mental illness, and illiteracy are only a few of the problems that disappear from public view when the human beings contending with them are relegated to cages.

acptulsa
02-23-2011, 03:17 PM
You can sympathize with whomever you wish, but I will never share sympathy with or shed a tear for someone who abandons their children; furthermore, Your characterization of her taking matters into her own hands as if she did some noble deed is ludicrous.

Well, if the world had your attitude, we certainly wouldn't remember the name Rosa Parks.

Throwing tea in Boston Harbor was awfully irresponsible, wasn't it? Risk of imprisonment and death just to avoid paying taxes on tea. What were they thinking? Of freedom? Silly people.

VegasPatriot
02-23-2011, 03:32 PM
This is what should have happened in this case.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JLvzHo3fbk&feature=player_embedded

enjerth
02-23-2011, 03:38 PM
When laws are unjust, a just man will have no respect for the law. You who respect this law, do you consider yourself just? Either you are saying that these laws are justified, or you are unjust in respecting them.

Kylie
02-23-2011, 03:43 PM
OK - so now you presume to be a better judge of parenting, too. Let's remember that your point is that she needs to be raising her kids for more than a sentence, shall we?



You couldn't remember for a single sentence?
If the object is to raise her kids, how is she to do that when she's spending her entire day rummaging through dumpsters for about 70 cents worth of aluminum per hour?
Unless you contend perhaps that her children should be doing it with her?
So, your solution to her supposed bad parenting is either to leave her children while she dumpster dives, or have them diving with her, right?
I'm gonna state this again: collecting cans is nowhere near as profitable as selling pot - no way. Recycling aluminum isn't worth the gas you burn to drive it to the center, so you belie a real ignorance of some basic economics here.



It is noble, absolutely.
Whereas you have consigned her to digging through garbage and possibly contracting diseases for a couple pennies, I recognize what she was doing for what it is.
She was running a business.
Moreover, she was running the business that maximized her profits - thus, presumably, enabling her to spend maximum time with her kids.
Drug dealing represents several of America's best characteristics.
It represents taking calculated risks supplying goods to willing buyers for potential profits.
She calculated her risk incorrectly.

Most business owners would simply go broke and have to start over.

This is one of the only ones where one needs to calculate the risk at a total ruination of one's life, children and home taken away, and never being able to work again.
I can understand if she didn't exactly get that that was the risk involved.
I and I totally understand that the only reason it is the risk involved is because there is still, unfortunately, no shortage of statist pigs showing up on internet fora to defend ruining the lives of business owners.


You're doing a great job without me.



Here it is! Everybody, say it together:
IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!!



I was going to give you +rep for this, but it seems I have given you too much already and need to spread the rep around.

I don't know that I like that.



I do know that what that woman has done should not and is not a crime in my eyes, and it was the best and most profitable way for her to spend time with her children. The only reason it would not be safe for her children to be anywhere around this situation is because of the threat of violence and imprisonment by the state.

Some people have it so ass backwards in their heads that they think the state is the defender in this situation, and not the aggressor. The whole system is fucked, and only people who haven't had the joy of dealing in it seem to think it's working in a manner that is justified.

BamaAla
02-23-2011, 03:46 PM
OK - so now you presume to be a better judge of parenting, too. Let's remember that your point is that she needs to be raising her kids for more than a sentence, shall we?

You couldn't remember for a single sentence?
If the object is to raise her kids, how is she to do that when she's spending her entire day rummaging through dumpsters for about 70 cents worth of aluminum per hour?
Unless you contend perhaps that her children should be doing it with her?

She could come home at night that way; now couldn't she? If she didn't want to dumpster dive she could have looked here: http://muskogeecountyjobs.com/s/find-all-jobs-in-muskogee-county-oklahoma?page=1 http://www.gojobs.com/ok-muskogee-county-jobs.html or in the classifieds of the newspaper. Or, she could have utilized the services that are available here http://www.okdhs.org/


So, your solution to her supposed bad parenting is either to leave her children while she dumpster dives, or have them diving with her, right?

That's right.


I'm gonna state this again: collecting cans is nowhere near as profitable as selling pot - no way. Recycling aluminum isn't worth the gas you burn to drive it to the center, so you belie a real ignorance of some basic economics here.

You're right; selling a commodity that is artificially profitable due to the very system that punished her isn't nearly as profitable as legal work. Oddly enough, though, if marijuana were legal, it wouldn't be as profitable and she would still be committing a crime (possibly a felony.)


It is noble, absolutely.

It's not.


Whereas you have consigned her to digging through garbage and possibly contracting diseases for a couple pennies, I recognize what she was doing for what it is.
She was running a business. Moreover, she was running the business that maximized her profits - thus, presumably, enabling her to spend maximum time with her kids.

She was running a felonious business. As much as I would like to see the laws changed, they are what they are and she showed a complete lack of concern for her children by breaking them. For that, I have no compassion for HER.


Drug dealing represents several of America's best characteristics.

To a point, I agree with you; however, in this instance, it represents a problem.


It represents taking calculated risks supplying goods to willing buyers for potential profits.
She calculated her risk incorrectly.

That might be true if risk/reward existed in a vacuum containing only her and her prospects, but it doesn't. In the situation at hand, she not only miscalculated her own risks she miscalculated the risks to her innocent children. I would wager, though, that there was less miscalculation and more disregard when it comes to the welfare of her kids.


Most business owners would simply go broke and have to start over.

Legitimate ones. This, however, was not a legitimate undertaking.


This is one of the only ones where one needs to calculate the risk at a total ruination of one's life, children and home taken away, and never being able to work again.

No one sprung this news on her. She went in knowing the consequences of her actions and, for that, she gets no sympathy from me.

driller80545
02-23-2011, 03:53 PM
"Because more important to me than shouting at the top of my lungs my disdain for the man is responsibility for four innocent children. I feel sorry for the children who will have no mother for the next ten years; I can sympathize with their upcoming struggle and emotions, but I hold the mother in the lowest of regard. Her responsibility was to her children and she ignored that fact."



My sympathies lie with the children also. But my disdain is for the state that kidnapped her and destroyed her family. I don't care if she sold pot or pussy, the state is the criminal here. When you start destroying families, people start getting shot. The state is a fanatic about legislating morality no less than the advocators of Sharia Law! Oohh, the Muslims.

BamaAla
02-23-2011, 03:58 PM
My sympathies lie with the children also. But my disdain is for the state that kidnapped her and destroyed her family. I don't care if she sold pot or pussy, the state is the criminal here. When you start destroying families, people start getting shot. The state is a fanatic about legislating morality no less than the advocators of Sharia Law! Oohh, the Muslims.

Agree 100%. The laws are ridiculous. The only reason I commented on this thread was in defense of Warrior and have never defended the laws, but everyone wants to make an irresponsible woman into Samuel Adams. That's simply not the case.

fisharmor
02-23-2011, 04:02 PM
No one sprung this news on her. She went in knowing the consequences of her actions and, for that, she gets no sympathy from me.

How can you say that, when the OP has a link to a NEWS article, and when it is most certainly NEWS to the lot of us that one can be imprisoned for 10 years for selling $31 of pot?
How can you say that, when so many others do the exact same thing and walk - or get probation, or suspended sentence?

Of course they sprung this news on her - she was the first person to find out the news that we're all treating as news, including the news organizations!

Nobody in their right mind would suspect that selling $31 of pot would carry a stiffer sentence than arson, rape, aggravated assault, burglary - just about anything besides bank robbing or murder 1.

The very notion flies in the face of justice. That's the point you seem to be railing against.

Kylie
02-23-2011, 04:05 PM
I used to work at a strip club in order to have as few hours as possible away from my children. I sold alcohol to men while they watched and felt up(and other things) with women who were not their wives(or sometimes were).

The only reason I am not in prison is because the state decided that what I did was moral and just, I guess.
I never said she was Sam Adams, I am saying she was wronged by the state and we should feel bad about that, since it's all of us who make up this state.

BamaAla
02-23-2011, 04:24 PM
How can you say that, when the OP has a link to a NEWS article, and when it is most certainly NEWS to the lot of us that one can be imprisoned for 10 years for selling $31 of pot?
How can you say that, when so many others do the exact same thing and walk - or get probation, or suspended sentence?

Of course they sprung this news on her - she was the first person to find out the news that we're all treating as news, including the news organizations!

Nobody in their right mind would suspect that selling $31 of pot would carry a stiffer sentence than arson, rape, aggravated assault, burglary - just about anything besides bank robbing or murder 1.

The very notion flies in the face of justice. That's the point you seem to be railing against.

Ignorance of the law isn't a defense. Furthermore, I believe that it's fairly common knowledge that a whole range of criminal offenses (especially possession and distribution of drugs) become felonious and carry exponentially increased sentences when committed near a school or in the company of children.


I used to work at a strip club in order to have as few hours as possible away from my children. I sold alcohol to men while they watched and felt up(and other things) with women who were not their wives(or sometimes were).

The only reason I am not in prison is because the state decided that what I did was moral and just, I guess.
I never said she was Sam Adams, I am saying she was wronged by the state and we should feel bad about that, since it's all of us who make up this state.

If you wanted to maximize your time with your children, you could have partitioned off half of their rooms and set up a meth lab which is a pretty common practice in my area. Your profits would have gone up along with your time with them. Why didn't you do that? Was it because you're a responsible parent who didn't want to expose them to that and risk going to jail for their formidable years? I would wager that's the case.

All along I have agreed that the laws are abhorrent, but I refuse to sympathize with a woman who showed such disregard for her children not as a freedom fighter or martyr but to turn a quick buck. I will never respect such actions.

PreDeadMan
02-23-2011, 04:32 PM
The only crime committed in this story were the men in blue costumes who work for a violent monopoly who forcefully kidnapped this lady against her will and threw her in their vehicle and drove her to their "station" for possessing a piece of vegetation...... So if this warrior fellow wants to be one of those you have to follow the law people and if you don't you DESERVE what you get... this person would be against people harboring slaves that escapes from their masters and let free because it's AGAINST THE LAW!.... tsk tsk tsk

Kylie
02-23-2011, 04:36 PM
Marijuana and meth aren't even close to the same. one is a weed that grows.wild, the other a manufactured drug that can be flammable to kill people.


I would sell pot, but not meth. I would grow it, but not take the vhance of hurting my kids by blowing them up cooking meth.

Apples and oranges, my friend.

But what if I was whoring myself? Would that be bad enough to take away my kids and toss me in jail?

BamaAla
02-23-2011, 04:49 PM
Marijuana and meth aren't even close to the same. one is a weed that grows.wild, the other a manufactured drug that can be flammable to kill people.


I would sell pot, but not meth. I would grow it, but not take the vhance of hurting my kids by blowing them up cooking meth.

Apples and oranges, my friend.

But what if I was whoring myself? Would that be bad enough to take away my kids and toss me in jail?

Are any of you reading what I'm writing? I agree that victimless crimes are abhorrent and should not be prosecuted or even exist. That isn't the point. The point is that they do exist and are prosecuted (harshly,) and risking the welfare of an innocent third party for financial gain is not a respectable undertaking quite the opposite actually.

But to answer your question: being fully abreast of the consequences of selling pot or prostitution in the company of your minor children, if you chose to do those things, you would not deserve to go to jail. You would, however, be a shitty person and an irresponsible parent who would go to jail and leave your children without a mother if caught. Just as in this case, I would be heart broken for your children but feel no compassion or sympathy for you.

DjLoTi
02-23-2011, 06:19 PM
I would just like to point out, that while we can have different opinions, we shouldn't attack each other. There are millions of people with different opinions. We should remember that there are lots of different variables. While I agree that the punishment is cruel, unusual, and insane, I also agree that this person, selling drugs around her children, is making a ridiculous misjudgment. Unfortunately, the children living without their mother is a greater punishment then anything. But seriously, is it crazy to think that $35 worth of weed is dangerous enough to lock a woman in prison for 10 years. There has seriously got to be some way she can benefit society. Because if she is somehow saved from this ordeal, hopefully she will change her life and thank god for her freedom. We shouldn't fight with each other though, and make fun of each other. It sounds like a freakin playground out here

Kylie
02-23-2011, 06:49 PM
I would just like to point out, that while we can have different opinions, we shouldn't attack each other. There are millions of people with different opinions. We should remember that there are lots of different variables. While I agree that the punishment is cruel, unusual, and insane, I also agree that this person, selling drugs around her children, is making a ridiculous misjudgment. Unfortunately, the children living without their mother is a greater punishment then anything. But seriously, is it crazy to think that $35 worth of weed is dangerous enough to lock a woman in prison for 10 years. There has seriously got to be some way she can benefit society. Because if she is somehow saved from this ordeal, hopefully she will change her life and thank god for her freedom. We shouldn't fight with each other though, and make fun of each other. It sounds like a freakin playground out here



I didn't think we were fighting.

A good debate, yes. But I hold no ill will, and I would think the same of BamaAla. I'm more trying to figure out where morals play into this. How does one garner what constitutes a shitty parent and what does not.

DjLoTi
02-23-2011, 06:54 PM
well i was really talking about the warrior of freedom bashers haha. but yea, you're right, marijuana ≠ meth, and all things are different. I think we all can agree that this lady probably should not have been selling weed in front of her kids. Hopefully we can all agree that this punishment doesn't really make anything better for anybody, including all of us.

Kylie
02-23-2011, 06:56 PM
Are any of you reading what I'm writing? I agree that victimless crimes are abhorrent and should not be prosecuted or even exist. That isn't the point. The point is that they do exist and are prosecuted (harshly,) and risking the welfare of an innocent third party for financial gain is not a respectable undertaking quite the opposite actually.

But to answer your question: being fully abreast of the consequences of selling pot or prostitution in the company of your minor children, if you chose to do those things, you would not deserve to go to jail. You would, however, be a shitty person and an irresponsible parent who would go to jail and leave your children without a mother if caught. Just as in this case, I would be heart broken for your children but feel no compassion or sympathy for you.


Fair enough.

I feel the same way about the people who were killed off the coast of Somalia. They knew it was terribly dangerous to be where they were. They had been warned to steer clear of the area but chose to go anyway. That decision got them killed.

I have acquaintances that I've grown up with that do sell pot, and they have kids. Around our area it's always been that way. So I don't see them necessarily as bad parents because of that choice. Some of them are shitty parents just because they are. Some are terrific parents. Some of the worst parents we have in the area do no drugs. They feel superior to the others, but spend no time with their children and have no relationship or teach them anything. I guess what someone does to make money has never really played into what I think of a person as a parent, legal or not.

Anti Federalist
02-23-2011, 07:26 PM
Ignorance of the law isn't a defense.

LoL, wish I could use that on the IRS agents that give people ten different answers to the same question

Or the USCG inspection officers that have issued me "835"s for infractions that do not apply to the vessel or class I was serving on at the time.

I can't think of how many cases I've read about where good people were railroaded into jail or insolvency because some enforcer either didn't know, or didn't care to know, "the law".

Never mind the fact that in this case, the law is an ass.

Wish I was on that jury, I would have hung that son of a bitch for acquittal until Judgment Day.

Anti Federalist
02-23-2011, 07:30 PM
Are any of you reading what I'm writing? I agree that victimless crimes are abhorrent and should not be prosecuted or even exist. That isn't the point. The point is that they do exist and are prosecuted (harshly,) and risking the welfare of an innocent third party for financial gain is not a respectable undertaking quite the opposite actually.

But to answer your question: being fully abreast of the consequences of selling pot or prostitution in the company of your minor children, if you chose to do those things, you would not deserve to go to jail. You would, however, be a shitty person and an irresponsible parent who would go to jail and leave your children without a mother if caught. Just as in this case, I would be heart broken for your children but feel no compassion or sympathy for you.

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." - Anatole France

ARealConservative
02-23-2011, 07:34 PM
Sympathy for someone intentionally committing a crime? Yeah right.

crimes need victims.

Wesker1982
02-23-2011, 07:40 PM
Vices are not crimes (http://www.lysanderspooner.org/VicesAreNotCrimes.htm); the actual crime is in criminalizing and prosecuting those with vices.

/thread

LibForestPaul
02-23-2011, 07:52 PM
-rep How about outrage for a ridiculous penalty for a victimless crime.

30k * 10 = 300k stolen citizen tax dollars for incarceration costs.

LibForestPaul
02-23-2011, 07:53 PM
I've heard of various attempted murder cases only getting 5 years...

Median years for all murder to manslaughter is 8 years

awake
02-23-2011, 07:56 PM
30k * 10 = 300k stolen citizen tax dollars for incarceration costs.

And there you have it, the drug war creates jobs, jobs, jobs for thugs, thugs, thugs.

kah13176
02-23-2011, 08:27 PM
If you are reading this thread, I ask you: WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF PUNISHMENT?

THIS is the underlying, fundamental question that must be addressed. As for me, I agree with Kant: punishment exists as

1. A deterrent. Examples include lengthy prison times for murder and rape.
2. Atonement. This would apply more petty crimes, such as theft or vandalizing. Since these are easily reversible, an example of an "atonement" punishment would be paying a fine and a little more to cover a robbery (with some jail time included as the deterrent), or cleaning up your own vandalism plus some community service (also the deterrent). Obviously, it's hard to give an "atonement" punishment to compensate a murder since life is sacred and priceless.

Taking this approach, we are still in a conundrum. Both deterrents and atonements can be used for crimes that include a victim. But what about victimless crimes, such as marijuana-related activities in this case. In consensual activities, though there may be negative consequences, one is not a victim of another person, but rather a victim of his own choices. Arguments against victimless crimes thus break down into arguments based SOLELY on the objector's religious preference. This is true because, if it were not based on religious views, then punishing marijuana activities with jailtime means we're protecting someone's life by threatening to destroy his life, which makes no sense (akin to justifying the draft to protect liberty, while confiscating the liberty of the drafted at the same time). Well obviously, by the first amendment, we are free to choose our own religion. If one chooses to act in a way that goes against a religion but does not infringe upon another's life, liberty, or property, then it is legal under Constitutional law.

Before any of my fellow libertarians even give any further arguments in this thread the time of day, the argument must reasonably show how someone else, through marijuana activities, imposes negative consequences upon the "victim", rather than the victim choosing to incur the negative consequences upon himself. If this cannot be shown, and yet the argument still advocates punishment as deterrent to marijuana activities, then that person must also advocate the use of punishment to deter the consumption of alcohol, caffeine, or foods high in fat: the logic is the same.

Kylie
02-23-2011, 09:57 PM
What negative consequences has "victim" incurred from buying/smoking pot, other than to have police arrest/kill him?

kah13176
02-23-2011, 11:16 PM
What negative consequences has "victim" incurred from buying/smoking pot, other than to have police arrest/kill him?

By "negative consequences", I was referring to possible health effects.

Kylie
02-24-2011, 06:57 AM
By "negative consequences", I was referring to possible health effects.

Okay. I thought so. :)

I don't really see any adverse effects physically, though. Especially if you eat it instead of smoking it.

dean.engelhardt
02-24-2011, 07:38 AM
What negative consequences has "victim" incurred from buying/smoking pot, other than to have police arrest/kill him?

You answered your own question. Most household cleaners are far more dangerous.

JK/SEA
02-24-2011, 07:40 AM
MASSACHUSETTS

1650

''FURTHER BE IT ENACTED THAT WHOSOEVER SHALL PROPHANE THE LORDS DAY BY DOING ANY SERVILLE WORK OR ANY SUCH ABUSES SHALL FORFEIT FOR EVERY SUCH DEFAULT TEN SHILLINGS OR BE WHIPPED.''

The point is, these laws pertaining to pot are on the fast track to becoming a blue law. Punishing good people for pot is morally reprehensible. PERIOD. It serves no purpose, except to make those in the law enforcement 'business' a steady paycheck.

fisharmor
02-24-2011, 08:50 AM
Are any of you reading what I'm writing? I agree that victimless crimes are abhorrent and should not be prosecuted or even exist. That isn't the point. The point is that they do exist and are prosecuted (harshly,) and risking the welfare of an innocent third party for financial gain is not a respectable undertaking quite the opposite actually.

Yes, I am reading what you're writing, I'm processing it, and I understand what you're saying.
Now respond to my argument:
It is not common knowledge that one can be punished more severely for selling marijuana than for murder or rape.
This is evidenced by the simple fact that this was sensationalized by a news organization, and also the fact that we all are reacting negatively to it. Obviously nobody expected it.
This is further evidenced by the fact that other dealers commonly get less or no time in prison for the same "crime".
Therefore we can not blame the mother because it is not common knowledge that the state exacts greater revenge on pot dealers than it does on murderers or rapists.

Also, I don't consider this a fight: I'm simply pointing out the holes in your argument.
You can't claim that the goal is to raise her children and then offer alternatives which prevent her from doing so.
You also can't claim that ignorance of the law is no excuse and then immediately claim that everyone knows this (when they clearly don't).

I understand that your overarching point is that everyone knows this is illegal and she should have chosen a different path.
That goes without saying. But you're taking it a step further and choosing to be OK with the way this turned out.
Sure, you say you're not, but placing any blame at all on the mother deflects attention away from the core issue: the state was wrong. Of course rule of law states that it was right to prosecute laws on the books. But it was wrong to prosecute to the fullest extent, ignoring mitigating circumstances like the children (instead choosing to use them as leverage AGAINST the mother), and it was wrong to exact greater revenge for this "crime" than it does for murder.

Keep your eye on the ball. The state WANTS you to get angry at the mother. I'm not going to voluntarily do what they want me to do, and I hope eventually you'll stop, too.

Tonewah
02-24-2011, 10:44 AM
a [redacted] person and an irresponsible parent who would go to jail and leave your children without a mother if caught. Just as in this case, I would be heart broken for your children but feel no compassion or sympathy for you.

Gah. This is what we're up against in Alabama. That's really a backwards thing to say if you claim to love liberty. WE are supposed to be the people who have compassion for those government does wrong, whether we agree with their actions or not. The statists don't have compassion, they throw government at everything.

One of the biggest mistakes the self-righteous neo-cons make is to believe that freedom means freedom from caring about anyone but themselves. Here's a little logic for your self-centered brain: If you DON'T take personal responsibility for the rights of those around you, they will collectivise and steal from you.

Freedom 4 all
02-24-2011, 11:45 AM
Her children.



If she wanted to be there to raise her fucking kids, yes.



Yes. There are almost unlimited ways she could have addressed her situation that don't involve jail time. She could have made more money, gotten some exercise, helped the planet, and stayed out of jail if she would have gotten her ass out and collected scraps or cans.




You can sympathize with whomever you wish, but I will never share sympathy with or shed a tear for someone who abandons their children; furthermore, Your characterization of her taking matters into her own hands as if she did some noble deed is ludicrous.



Same thing everyone else is: supporting Ron Paul. Why; are you the ideology purity tester that will level the "that's not libertarian enough" charge at me?



Because more important to me than shouting at the top of my lungs my disdain for the man is responsibility for four innocent children. I feel sorry for the children who will have no mother for the next ten years; I can sympathize with their upcoming struggle and emotions, but I hold the mother in the lowest of regard. Her responsibility was to her children and she ignored that fact.

And who's fucking fault is it her children have no mother for 10 years? Seriously what the fuck? She was probably selling the pot to PROVIDE for her children in the first place. It may have been her only means of income and some monster on a power trip took her away. Talk about blaming the victim. Do you also think rape victims "deserve" it because they wear skimpy clothes in dark alleys? Sure, you shouldn't do that and it's probably a bad idea, but it does not change the fact that the perpetrators are the monsters and victims are victims.

BamaAla
02-24-2011, 12:47 PM
Yes, I am reading what you're writing, I'm processing it, and I understand what you're saying.
Now respond to my argument:
It is not common knowledge that one can be punished more severely for selling marijuana than for murder or rape.
This is evidenced by the simple fact that this was sensationalized by a news organization, and also the fact that we all are reacting negatively to it. Obviously nobody expected it.
This is further evidenced by the fact that other dealers commonly get less or no time in prison for the same "crime".
Therefore we can not blame the mother because it is not common knowledge that the state exacts greater revenge on pot dealers than it does on murderers or rapists.

Also, I don't consider this a fight: I'm simply pointing out the holes in your argument.
You can't claim that the goal is to raise her children and then offer alternatives which prevent her from doing so.
You also can't claim that ignorance of the law is no excuse and then immediately claim that everyone knows this (when they clearly don't).

I understand that your overarching point is that everyone knows this is illegal and she should have chosen a different path.
That goes without saying. But you're taking it a step further and choosing to be OK with the way this turned out.
Sure, you say you're not, but placing any blame at all on the mother deflects attention away from the core issue: the state was wrong. Of course rule of law states that it was right to prosecute laws on the books. But it was wrong to prosecute to the fullest extent, ignoring mitigating circumstances like the children (instead choosing to use them as leverage AGAINST the mother), and it was wrong to exact greater revenge for this "crime" than it does for murder.

Keep your eye on the ball. The state WANTS you to get angry at the mother. I'm not going to voluntarily do what they want me to do, and I hope eventually you'll stop, too.

I fully understand the intent of what you're saying and I agree with most of it. As I've said many times, I don't think she committed a crime and I hope the laws are changed going forward; however, I'm not going out of my way to feel sorry for her. There really is nothing more I can say about it.


Gah. This is what we're up against in Alabama. That's really a backwards thing to say if you claim to love liberty. WE are supposed to be the people who have compassion for those government does wrong, whether we agree with their actions or not. The statists don't have compassion, they throw government at everything.

One of the biggest mistakes the self-righteous neo-cons make is to believe that freedom means freedom from caring about anyone but themselves. Here's a little logic for your self-centered brain: If you DON'T take personal responsibility for the rights of those around you, they will collectivise and steal from you.


I donate money to these organizations, I take time away from my business to travel to places like New Orleans and Washington D.C. to support Ron Paul and the movement, I spend hours at the boring ass one sided county Republican party meetings so we'll have a voice, yet you declare me the enemy because I don't use libertarianism to absolve parents of their responsibilities?