OT: You Might Be An Idiot If

[Saber Cherry]

Originally posted by Loser:
Secondly, you don't go to jail for being addicted to crack. You go to jail for doing stupid things, whether you are addicted or not. I'm guessing you've never been busted for possession, so you might not know that people only get busted when they're doing something else wrong. Random drug checks don't occur as you're walking down the street. If someone wants to keep their drug use secret, it's real easy.

You might want to look up the Dallas, Texas "fake crack" scandal. Here, I'll give you an excerpt:


"In January 2002, the FBI began investigating how paid confidential informants set up dozens of innocent people on charges involving drugs that later turned out to be gypsum or some other legal substance.

The fake drugs were allegedly planted on the victims in investigations run by Senior Cpl. Mark Delapaz and Officer Eddie Herrera.

Delapaz was fired in April after being charged with five counts of deprivation of rights under color of law and one count of making false statements to federal officials. Herrera remains on paid leave.

Drug charges against more than 80 people were later dismissed by the Dallas County District Attorney's Office."


Yes, lots of people went to jail for possession of gypsum (Calcium sulfate, a building material). I don't think they were high at the time. But yes, you're right that I've never been busted walking down the street. Unfortunately... black people have it a bit harder. I know blacks who have been pulled over and had their cars searched for drugs (and came up clean, because they're nice, normal, everyday people) just because they're black.

You're right that (in America) white people don't usually get imprisioned just for possession or use, but minorities do.

-Cherry

P.S. Better attribute my sources... http://www.nbc5i.com/news/2434012/detail.html

[ October 16, 2003, 18:04: Message edited by: Saber Cherry ]

[Ran-Taro]

[quote]Originally posted by Erax:

The warrior wears his courage on the outside and his compassion on the inside. The monk wears his compassion on the outside and his courage on the inside." (Japanese proverb)

We need fewer warriors, but have too few monks.

[Loser]

I don't think it's fair, Cherry, to blame the law for abuses of the law. This certainly applies to the fake-drugs issue and to any other 'plants'. It could be said to apply to the issue of racial profiling, but I don't think that's a worthwhile fight.

To more directly address the abuse issue in profiling I'll briefly describe how the law says such a bust has to work. The officer has to back up his search by saying he has 'probably cause'. That is, as everyone here probably knows, that he or she has good reason to believe there are drugs in there. The cop cannot put "He was black." down on his paperwork to back up his search. He can, however, put "I smelled a sag-like odor." or some such nonsense.

With the growing freedoms of information, eventually someone will put it all together and report on how often the cops use BS reasons for their probably cause on minorities compared to how often they use them against anglos or whites in general. Then things will change. Until then, legalizing possession is hardly the answer.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

well, i really really hate to say this, but find me a mother that didn't take at least a couple of picture's of there kids in the bathtub.

well, we could always say 'any nude pictures of other peoples kids or imaginary kids, wings or not.' it's a start.

[Ran-Taro]

Originally posted by Loser:
Until then, legalizing possession is hardly the answer.

Well, it would get rid of a hell of a lot of criminals that way. Given that you are never going to stop people taking drugs anyway, why not?

Perhaps then we could spend our law enforcement dollars on something else like, oh, I don't know... how about on addressing the root causes of violent crime? (Poverty and ignorance).

Nah, stupid idea.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

unfortunatly, some people are just mean.

[Ran-Taro]

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
well, i really really hate to say this, but find me a mother that didn't take at least a couple of picture's of there kids in the bathtub.

well, we could always say 'any nude pictures of other peoples kids or imaginary kids, wings or not.' it's a start.

This is the thing though. What's wrong with kids being nude? To anyone who isn't a pervert, a naked kid is just a naked kid - not anything sexual at all to an adult. It seems to me we magnify the problem if we start seeing childrens bodies as somehow sexual, and therefore compulsively covering them up and making them all neurotic about it.

Just because there are a few perverts out there, does that mean we should bring up a whole generation of kids who start to get screwed up about sexuality before they are even sexual?