Letters to the Editor
-
ondelette
The problem, Aycharaych, is that, at least as far as I can guess from your numerous letters on the subject, you could give a rat's ass about the plight of people in prison.
I have a loved one doing hard time for drug possession.
That's the primary reason for my obsession.
There goes your mind reading shtick.
"Drug courts" != ending the drug war.
-
ondelette
And the abuses in prisons are not generally for the purposes of coercing information, which is part of the definition of torture.
Really?
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=torture
# S: (n) anguish, torment, torture (extreme mental distress)
# S: (n) torture, torment (unbearable physical pain)
# S: (n) agony, torment, torture (intense feelings of suffering; acute mental or physical pain) "an agony of doubt"; "the torments of the damned"
# S: (n) distortion, overrefinement, straining, torture, twisting (the act of distorting something so it seems to mean something it was not intended to mean)
# S: (n) torture, torturing (the deliberate, systematic, or wanton infliction of physical or mental suffering by one or more persons in an attempt to force another person to yield information or to make a confession or for any other reason) "it required unnatural torturing to extract a confession"
That is *one* of the definitions of torture.
Do you wish to argue that *all* torture is inflicted for the purpose of extracting information?
But since we know that torture is not effective in extracting useful information then the use of torture is really to instill fear.
-
@Ondolette
I think the "smoking pot legally" is the dodge. Even the drug war opposition is just window dressing. Ron Paul is the elephant in the room, but he'll deny it.
-
Aych
ondelette said
And the abuses in prisons are not generally for the purposes of coercing information, which is part of the definition of torture.
Aych said:
Really?...
-- Aycharaych
I'm saying:
You evaded, ignored, went around, dodged ondeltte's point.
The torture in black holes is 'supposedly' for getting information. Although, realistically, I'm sure a lot of it, if not all of it, is just because people who torture people are either sadistic fucks or regular people who become sadistic fucks. Either way, ondelette's point was that the torture that goes on in US prisons is almost completely due to people being sadistic fucks rather than for the wrongheaded purpose of pulling out information from the tortured.
Your list of definitions were irrelevant to ondelette's point.
-
Of course not
My mistake, you have another personal cause on the line. I made my best guess.
As for what drug courts constitute, they constitute an effort to move interventions for drug abuse out of the prison system. It is the prison terms for drug users that offend you, by your admission, so why doesn't this constitute any solution? Like I said, you are interested in decriminalizing drug use, not in the prison system or whether drug users end up there. Many of the people who are most abused in prison are members of or suspected members of gangs. How do you feel about imprisoning gang members? How about killers? Same way as pot smokers? Maybe not. But they are entitled to just as much protection from abuse. In my state there are both comprehensive prison reform efforts and investigations in progress, and people are being prosecuted for prison abuses, and it has broad popular and bipartisan legislative and gubernatorial support. They may have a ways to go, but to say they don't care about the problem is unfair.
I didn't really think you would accept my offering of proof of concern for drug offenders in prison. Because you had offered to shut up if someone gave you any proof, I had assumed that no proof would be adequate. You've found an in to talk about your favorite subject, you apparently don't give a damn about torture.
-
A few more ponts..
I know good and damn well that the drug war is never likely to end, so my postings on here do not have the purpose of "making it possible for me to smoke pot legally.
All I'm really trying to do is to point out that liberals talk a good game about "individual freedoms" but when push comes to shove they don't give a rat's ass about true freedom.
If we do not have the freedom to do as we wish with our own bodies then how can we be said to even have ownership of our bodies..
Isn't control over our own bodies what the abortion issue is all about?
And in the abortion issue there is also the fact that another at least potential life is at stake. Not so with the drug war.
Prohibition of mind altering substances causes more problems in society than it solves.
Agree or disagree?
-
Aych
Prohibition of mind altering substances causes more problems in society than it solves.
Agree or disagree?
-- Aycharaych
Agree. So are you finished now?
-
Again, you didn't read it
L.W.M
What does your link have to do with ending the drug war?
Or you really do have reading comprehension issues. I think you have a hidden agenda. He even makes a little joke about you people...
Hillary Clinton continues to get the drug policy questions right:
During a visit to Manchester, New Hampshire on July 13, Len Epstein of Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana told the senator and presidential candidate: "Twelve states allow medical marijuana, but the Bush administrations continues to raid patients."
Clinton replied: "Yes, I know. It's terrible."
"Would you stop the federal raids?" Epstein asked.
"Yes, I will," she responded firmly. [MPP]
As I've said before, it's exciting to hear the democratic front-runner taking the right positions on our issues. Clinton has now pledged to fight racial profiling, reform the crack/powder sentencing disparity, promote treatment instead of incarceration, and now vows to end the federal war on medical marijuana patients and providers. That's a rock solid drug policy platform for a mainstream candidate.
Yes, I know there are long-shot candidates willing to go further (what's his name, Ron something?). But the willingness of front-runners – on the left, at least – to take common sense positions on drug policy reflects a growing awareness that reform is not political suicide.
The joke:
I was kidding.
Comment posted by Scott Morgan on Thu, 07/19/2007 - 12:59am
It was a jab at the Ron Paul folks who yelled at me last time I mentioned Clinton. But yeah, Ron Paul is great on drug policy.
If you read the comments you see this:
Hillary is PRO-DRUG WAR!!!
Comment posted by Anonymous on Sat, 07/21/2007 - 11:04pm
What she's saying now is all a LIE.
Evidence;
She Co-sponsored the Rave act.
She co-sponsored the Amber Alert act with the Rave act rider.
She co-sponsored the bill in 2001 that (based on Dr. Ricaurte's flawed research that was retracted 2 years later, and in defiance of ALL OTHER scientific community input (Federation of American Scientists report to the sentencing commission) raised the federal sentencing equivalency of MDMA from
1g = 35g marijuana
to an attempted 1,000g
Finalizing at
1g = 500g marijuana.
With this equivalency
1 pill of ecstasy = 25 doses of heroin.
1 pill of ecstasy = 125g/4.4oz of marijuana.
She might talk about harm reduction, but her supporting the RAVE act undermines this.
She might say the drug war doesn't make sense, but she keeps arming the drug warriors with better weapons to kill and imprison drug users and those that would reduce the risk of use for those that choose to use.
I'm looking at jail time for MDMA. Hillary is directly responsible for me facing YEARS instead of MONTHS (prior to 2001).
No anti-drug speech she can give now will sway me to her side.
This is propaganda from you people. Perhaps that was even you.
Farther down
Hillary was not a co-sponsor of that bill.
Comment posted by Anonymous on Tue, 07/31/2007 - 2:44pm
The RAVE act was sponsored by Senators Biden and Grassley, co-sponsored by Senators Hatch, Lieberman, and Thurmond. Leahy and Durbin were also co-sponsors, but withdrew their names.
Try to get your information correct next time.
I could find no record of her co-sponsoring RAVE
Comment posted by Anonymous on Sun, 07/22/2007 - 7:10pm
I looked in quite a few places, because I'm no fan of Hillary, but I live in a fact based world. There were 5 cosponsers and she wasn't one of them. Two of the org. Leahy and Durbin dropped their sponsership also.
You are not helping your cause, which was a lost cause from the get go but that's just the facts. Another fact is, Democrats don't give a rat's ass about busting pot smokers. It isn't even on their list of things to do.
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle_blog/2007/jul/05/hillary_clinton_drug_policy_refo