Gluttons for Punishment

[ChemicalBeauty]

Well, the law is sometimes cruel and unyielding (AS ARE OUR LIVES IN GENERAL) ...

I say - live in [the] US and be mighty well happy that YOU will be taken care of.

If you wanna change something - go and do something to help your cause and change the legislation, not break the law and then whine your pants off when you get put away.

Three [!] great quotes. Generally speaking, people here in the states really don't realize how good they've got it. The people at the bottom rung of the economic scale enjoy a higher standard of living than people in the mid to upper levels of the socio-economic scale in a lot of other countries. But you'll still find the occasional dimbwit who thinks that people should be allowed to step on or endanger whomever they please, in order to better their lifes, regardless of how adequately their needs are currently being met.

And I wouldn't put too much stock in the opinions of the few who've posted in this thread, skj. The internet has always been a haven for unscrupulous individuals, and unfortunately bluelight may well be at the top of the list when it comes to morally bankrupt ideologies The rare few who can successfully integrate [socially] liberal lifestyles with common sense and level-headedness, are the reason I come back :D

 

[Invalid Usename]

ChemicalBeauty

Porky Pig sayz:

Baa dah... Baa dah... Baa dah... I smell DEA!

 

[FUTURAmike]

i just dont get you people, should i go: "ohh poor thing.. 55 years OMG those fucking authorities!! Oh the shame!!" Is that it? Well, the law is sometimes cruel and unyielding (AS ARE OUR LIVES IN GENERAL) and the guy got roooyally screwed (by the direct letter of the law no less).. OK so what??! 200,000 innocent people just got their lives taken in south-east asia just like that, and another ~800,000 left homeless. I say - live in US and be mighty well happy that YOU will be taken care of. Some drug dealer is not a huge loss for the society anyway. If you wanna change something - go and do something to help your cause and change the legislation, not break the law and then whine your pants off when you get put away.



skjalff

although I'm one of those drug users that whine in a way, that's a good post. Injustice is injustice on any level though, and should not be accepted just because it pales in comparison to some other injustice in the world... No matter how bad you have it, there's always going to be someone having it worse. ^___^

fm

 

[MattPD]

Chemical Beauty-

I'll note that you have no comment for how you rationalize your use when it supports things like this when you have no empathy for the victim of an unjust law.

You, sir, have no right to call others morally bankrupt when it is obvious that some of your morals are seriously out of place.

 

[ChemicalBeauty]

Chemical Beauty-

I'll note that you have no comment for how you rationalize your use when it supports things like this when you have no empathy for the victim of an unjust law.

You, sir, have no right to call others morally bankrupt when it is obvious that some of your morals are seriously out of place.

Matt: go ahead and take note. As a matter of fact, take a fucking picture.
You, sir, are incomprehensible. I've tried to decipher your last three posts, and I've come up empty handed on three seperate occasions. Trying to give you the benefit of the doubt (hey-- we all post really stoned occasionally --right?) I've just kept my mouth shut (weren't you a moderator at one time?). But seeing as how jibberish seems to be quite the common language with you, I'll just go ahead and state the obvious: your posts leave me completely fucking bewildered.

In what way does my "use" support or encourage individuals to use weapons during their drug deals? How does me smoking a joint in my living room have ANYTHING to do with whether or not Joe Weedslanger brings his gun to his next sale? Also, the second time you used the word "when" in that first paragraph totally leaves me reading in a continual, non-sensical loop.

I DO empathize with ANYONE who's going to spend the next 55yrs of their life in prison, but IT'S NOT LIKE THIS GUY DIDN'T KNOW THAT IF HE GOT CAUGHT HE'D BE FUCKED. Not to mention facing serious jail-time. There's just no room to "breathe" when you're breaking the law with weapons. Whether you use them or not. The type of person that's willing to kill over a few grand need to be seperated from the rest of society, in my opinion.

 

[Invalid Usename]

i just dont get you people, should i go: "ohh poor thing.. 55 years OMG those fucking authorities!! Oh the shame!!" Is that it? Well, the law is sometimes cruel and unyielding (AS ARE OUR LIVES IN GENERAL) and the guy got roooyally screwed (by the direct letter of the law no less).. OK so what??! 200,000 innocent people just got their lives taken in south-east asia just like that, and another ~800,000 left homeless. I say - live in US and be mighty well happy that YOU will be taken care of. Some drug dealer is not a huge loss for the society anyway. If you wanna change something - go and do something to help your cause and change the legislation, not break the law and then whine your pants off when you get put away.

skjalff,

You are absolute right, there are many things Americans can be thankful for. In some ways the United States is a shinning star, albeit becoming more and more tarnished as its core foundation is legislated away due to their "inconveniences."


Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
- United States Declaration of Independence

That is such an incredible ideal, so simple and yet so absolutely true. So long as no one is harmed in the process (i.e., victim less) then the rights of the individual shall be up held and protected. At least, that is what the founders of the United States had in mind when they formed this nation.

Since that time, this ideal has eroded, and the War on Drugs is a perfect example. And one where the War on Drugs exists as a result of itself (much like the Witch trials of long ago).

Prohibition exists in direct conflict of the ideals held in the Declaration of Independence. The government's "public" argument is that it "protects" people from themselves, yet that was not the directive handed down by our fore fathers. And further, due to political lobbying, some substances are excluded from the Drug War, officially regulated substances which are just as addictive and deadly as the worst of the illegal drugs sold through the Drug War's self-created "black market."


Perhaps people are whining, but what is important is that an opened dialog is achieved. And that dialog opens the doors for people to join together and eventually change said laws. Because, unless people have the opportunity review arguments which highlight the absurdity of governmental intervention into victimless activities, and press the government for change, then the government will continue slowly eroding rights as they see convenient.

Drug crime is an artificial crime, created by governmental mandate, and enforced by a secondary element which owes its very existence (and funding) to the existence of the mandate. It is a straw man promoted to fuel the same sentiment in the public that allowed the Witch Trials to go on. This artificial public viewpoint is promoted and used by politicians to further their careers, obtain massive budgets from public tax dollars, and create a situation were the United States has the largest per capita of its population in prisons of any other country in the world.

By virtue of its existence, the War on Drugs has created and sustained the largest black market the world has ever seen. And the harm done by the secondary crime resulting from this black market is astounding.


Discord leads to dialog, and dialog leads to action. But I do agree with the spirit of your post, too many of us wish to complain without seeking to find solutions.

 

[ChemicalBeauty]

ChemicalBeauty

Porky Pig sayz:

Dub a dub a dah... Dub a dub a dah... Dub a dub a dah... I smell DEA!

Impotent Username: Posting a shot of - and providing dialogue for - Porky the Pig -- has got to be the absolute stupidest fucking thing I've ever seen posted on bluelight.

And that's saying alot

 

[Invalid Usename]

Impotent Username: Posting a shot of - and providing dialogue for - Porky the Pig -- has got to be the absolute stupidest fucking thing I've ever seen posted on bluelight.

And that's saying alot

Trust me. I selected the character "Porky the Pig" specifically to fit what I see as your viewpoints held on this matter.

I have see your posts time and timne again jump from assert to deny, assert to deny. On the one hand, you claim to be a user of recreational substances. And on the other you support the War on Drugs.

There are only two kinds of people who would do that: a complete moron, or a DEA agent.

Thus, either you are a DEA agent, or...

 

[ChemicalBeauty]

ChemicalBeauty

Porky Pig sayz:

Baa dah... Baa dah... Baa dah... I smell DEA!

lmao at your edit of Porky's dialogue 8)

"Baa dah" gives the reader a much better perspective on what Porky's trying to communicate than "dub ah ... dub ah ..."

You're not by chance an editor for a major magazine ...

:D

 

[ChemicalBeauty]

I have Porky the fucking pig calling me a DEA agent.

I have officially seen and heard it all :D

And I agree with you labeling me "assertive". That I definately am. But where (and what?) do I "deny"? Please explain, porky.

 

[MattPD]

Let me make you a little diagram...

Big dealer (with guns, you bet) ----> smaller dealer (also with guns likely) ----> Lot's of smaller dealers ----> You.

Now that I've drawn it out is it more easy for you to comprehend?

You are a hypocrite, you are insensitive, and you don't realize that we're all in this boat together and...well..I dunno. If you buy illicit drugs you support this type of thing happening.

If you feel so strongly that people having guns and having them during deals is wrong then you wouldn't be buying drugs and supporting their need to carry weapons (i.e. the illicit nature of the drugs.)

Do you understand now?

 

[ChemicalBeauty]

Rofl no! i do not!

Let me make you a little diagram...

Big dealer (with guns, you bet) ----> smaller dealer (also with guns likely) ----> Lot's of smaller dealers ----> You.

Now that I've drawn it out is it more easy for you to comprehend?

Do you understand now?

Is this some kind of joke? Am I on candid camera?

 

[dr seuss]

so much hostility. so unnecessary.

man, if people like CB are representative of drug users, no wonder mofos carry a gun. i would too, you can't even blink without ^this guy^ calling you a fuckhead :D

seriously though:

i am not in favour of gun manufacture, distribution, or ownership. i would like to see all guns removed from civilian life. i have little sympathy for people who use guns on other people.

that said:

there are a few things we should bear in mind here.

1) prohibition is the very reason this person - and thousands of other drug dealers - feel it necessary to carry a weapon.

2) america has fucked up gun laws. in some states, you can't have big guns, right? and in others, you can have guns, but they must be visible, right? and in others you can practically have a tank nestling among your testicles and it's all legal, right? the point is this: you're living in a gun culture, with various conflicting laws about gun control, usage, etc. and to me, rather than giving HALF A CENTURY IN PRISON TO SOMEONE WHO HAS NOT DEMONSTRABLY COMMITTED ANY VIOLENT CRIME, perhaps a decent and good move would be to, ahem, CONFRONT THE REAL PROBLEM: GUN CONTROL. seriously, if you're so passionate about it that you can use caps lock & are willing to slag off respected posters to shout about dead children in the ghetto you obviously don't live in, then WRITE TO YOUR DAMN CONGRESSPERSON AND SENATOR AND GET TEH FUCKING LAW CHANGED.

3) prohibition ends ethical choices for drug users. this is why matt's question is relevant. if you use drugs, you support weapons and most likely other large-scale criminal activity. it doesn't matter how many swearwords or smileyfaces you use.

4) even the judge - someone far more qualified than we internet arbiters of absolutist policy, right? - is calling for a revision of the rules here.

5) as Potted Meat said, if this man had been stopped - without drugs - and found to be carrying a concealed weapon, would he have been treated differently? or are guns only problems when drug dealers have them?

6) to you, the amount of substance has something to do with a person's culpability. in fact, the amount of weed - we're not talking crack here. in which case you wouldn't mind if i was carrying one 'dank nug' and you were carrying two 'dank nugs' and i got community service and you got three years, right? your initial complaint was that this guy was selling a 'few thousand dollars worth'. seriously man... where do you get your weed from?

 

[Invalid Usename]

dr seuss,
Absolutely brilliant post!


What I see this all as coming down to is the difference between the spirit of a law, and the application of a law.


Spirit of Law

It would seem that the spirit of this law is to discourage drug dealers from using guns in their normal business. In principle it is a good idea, as the intention is to prevent people from becoming victims of a firearm.

In this case, at no time was a firearm used during the commission of the "drug crime." In that sense, the "spirit" of the law was not violated as the weapon was not used. Technically, the gun was present. In actuality, the gun was not incorporated in the commission of a crime.


Application of Law

This fellow was setup to make a drug sale on several occasions. The law enforcement officers could have, and should have, arrested him upon the first commission of the crime. However, rather than arresting him on the first offense, they play this out more and are able to get him on multiple instances of weapons possession, which increases his sentence exponentially. (Ha ha, we gotcha )

What law enforcement did was "technically" legal. However, as I see it, it is the same as planting evidence, because this man was never given the chance to face court with a "first offence" (which would have produced a much lower sentence).


The question is, why did the officers and prosecution want to set this guy up for [effectively] a life sentence? The guy was an executive (so he wasn't going around blowing people up), he sold pot (so what?).


While thinking about that question, keep in mind that the United States has the largest percentage of its population in prison of any other country in the world (and the majority of those in prison are due to drug related charges).

Furthermore, prohibition directly violates the fundamental notion of "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." If someone wishes to use recreational drugs, it is their own business. If they harm themselves in the course of using recreational drugs, that is also their own responsibility.

One can argue that selling drugs which are known to be addictive, is a harmful act. However, in light of the availability of alcohol and tobacco, such arguments only further point out the double standards found in US laws (as direct result of lobbying).

Drugs can harm people, and families. True. And alcoholism destroys people and families. And tobacco destroys people and families (a dead parent is no longer there). However it is expedient to go after recreational drug users, they are no lobbies and the public has been programed to believe that not only are these users "bad people" but that they should spend large sums of money keeping them in jail (the law enforcement and justice side of drug money is an industry in itself).


We have drug laws which reflect a double standard, law enforcement and federal prosecution who's sole purpose to put people in prison (proven by the US being number #1 in prisoners).

Add in the Patriot Act, and it is obvious that we are rapidly moving towards a police state. But what is behind that police state is a law enforcement and justice industry which depends on the drug market to exist.

So, rather than being a police state of ideals, it is one fueled by a sick form of industrial commercialism paid for by tax payers.

 

[Invalid Usename]

lmao at your edit of Porky's dialogue 8)

"Baa dah" gives the reader a much better perspective on what Porky's trying to communicate than "dub ah ... dub ah ..."

You're not by chance an editor for a major magazine ... ?

:D

Good guess, but no cigar. :D

Say da magic woird, and da duck will give ya a hundred dollarrs...

 

[MattPD]

But, I'll be honest with you when I tell you one thing I do disagree with and that is:- your whole outlook on the pot user. I know plenty of pot user's that wouldn't have even seen a gun. I've met a few that would not touch any other weed than their own homegrown... so if the "grower" is smoking his own yield, and not in posession of a firearm... how is he supporting "guns in holsters", or other activities associated with criminals (apart from the fact that it's illegal to smoke MJ.)

I just can't see how using drugs is supporting violence or the use of guns, sorry. Because I sure as hell don't!
and... yes, I do use drugs.
It's almost like how the Government likes to feed us this bullshit that if we use drugs like Hashish, or Opium/Heroin... we are "supporting" terrorism.
How is that so?

Otherwise, good point...
sorry for the disagreement.

Ok, in cases in which people only use illicit drugs they have manufactured themselves or which have been manufactured by a friend or someone you know (i.e. you know the source) then you are not supporting the use of guns by illicit drug traffickers.

However, if you ever buy from a person and you do not know the source (especially if we're talking something like MDMA, coke, heroin yada yada yada, even pot as we've learned) then you are likely buying a drug that was at one point around guns and people willing to use them.

Therefore, by being a willing consumer of the substance you are giving a higher level source or dealer the impetus to use guns.

(and CB, if you don't know what impetus means, look it up.)

This conversation is going in circles because people are being willfully ignorant to try to conform to some higher moral/ethical idea, but, c'est la vie.

 

[ChemicalBeauty]

listen, fuckhead ...

so much hostility. so unnecessary.

man, if people like CB are representative of drug users, no wonder mofos carry a gun. i would too, you can't even blink without ^this guy^ calling you a fuckhead

What does calling someone a "fuckhead" have to do with arming yourself? Cussing at someone is now justification for shooting them? What a silly little comment there, seussy.

1) prohibition is the very reason this person - and thousands of other drug dealers - feel it necessary to carry a weapon.

Right. And I've already stated numerous times that drug-prohibition should be reversed. But until that day, you're not welcome to break the law using your gun to secure your profits. Sorry, brother.

seriously, if you're so passionate about it that you can use caps lock & are willing to slag off respected posters to shout about dead children in the ghetto you obviously don't live in, then WRITE TO YOUR DAMN CONGRESSPERSON AND SENATOR AND GET TEH FUCKING LAW CHANGED

You've gotten your parties muddled up. I don't need to write my congressman, this for-profit, gon-toting fuck is doing 55yrs! I only ask for 5

if you use drugs, you support weapons and most likely other large-scale criminal activity.

I used to think you simply varied in opinion from me, I now know that you actually have a screw loose. You're as bad as the Bush Admin's commercials stating "Did you smoke a joint today? If so, you just killed a police officer, or a judge etc..." What a joke!

or are guns only problems when drug dealers have them?

Go rob a bank with a shotgun and report back as to your findings. The problem here, has nothing to do with drugs, and everything to do with breaking civilized law with the threat of - and capability to - use deadly weapons.

6)according to you, the amount of substance has something to do with a person's culpability.

Absolutely. And according to every state and federal law in this country, too. A 20yr old with an ounce of pot to smoke is in a lot different boat (legally) than a 20yr old with 5 pounds to sell.

in fact, the amount of weed - we're not talking crack here

So you'd have no problem with this sentence had the guy been selling a pound of crack instead of pot?

your initial complaint was that this guy was selling a 'few thousand dollars worth'. seriously man... where do you get your weed from?

What are you saying? It's a lot more or less?

 

[ChemicalBeauty]

I couldn't agree more with almost all of this:

Furthermore, prohibition directly violates the fundamental notion of "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." If someone wishes to use recreational drugs, it is their own business. If they harm themselves in the course of using recreational drugs, that is also their own responsibility.

One can argue that selling drugs which are known to be addictive, is a harmful act. However, in light of the availability of alcohol and tobacco, such arguments only further point out the double standards found in US laws (as direct result of lobbying).

Drugs can harm people, and families. True. And alcoholism destroys people and families. And tobacco destroys people and families (a dead parent is no longer there). However it is expedient to go after recreational drug users, they are no lobbies and the public has been programed to believe that not only are these users "bad people" but that they should spend large sums of money keeping them in jail (the law enforcement and justice side of drug money is an industry in itself).


We have drug laws which reflect a double standard, law enforcement and federal prosecution who's sole purpose to put people in prison (proven by the US being number #1 in prisoners).

Add in the Patriot Act, and it is obvious that we are rapidly moving towards a police state. But what is behind that police state is a law enforcement and justice industry which depends on the drug market to exist.

So, rather than being a police state of ideals, it is one fueled by a sick form of industrial commercialism paid for by tax payers.

But that has nothing to do with guns.

 

[PityTheFool]

Re: listen, fuckhead ...

What does calling someone a "fuckhead" have to do with arming yourself? Cussing at someone is now justification for shooting them? What a silly little comment there, seussy.

I'm sure he meant your tendency towards excessive confrontation here (i.e. calling him a fuckhead) could very well mirror your personality in the real world. In which case you're not a person anyone would want to trade money with.

I used to think you simply varied in opinion from me, I now know that you actually have a screw loose. You're as bad as the Bush Admin's commercials stating "Did you smoke a joint today? If so, you just killed a police officer, or a judge etc..." What a joke!

The Bush Admin is correct that crime and guns and murder do get involved in the drug trade, and that these elements wouldn't exist if there was no drug demand (you). The Bush Admin's commercials are ridiculous not because of their initial claim, but because they fail to acknowledge that crime, guns, and murder wouldn't be associated with drugs if they legalized and regulated the prohibited drugs.

I told a slight lie above... There was this one anti-drug commercial featuring a conversation between two white-collar guys. One guy suggests legalisation and cites all the benefits I mentioned above, and the other one replies that then there'd be crack for sale at the schoolyard, and heroin from ice-cream vans. The ad ends, as if a reasonable rebuttal had been provided; it was bullshit because cigarettes and alcohol are an example of desirable drugs that are quite successfully kept out of the hands of youths who shouldn't have them (except where an adult passes them on).

Go rob a bank with a shotgun and report back as to your findings. The problem here, has nothing to do with drugs, and everything to do with breaking civilized law with the threat of - and capability to - use deadly weapons.

It has everything to do with drugs. Drugs are desirable and illegal, therefore they are expensive. At high levels of a distribution chain, it's only practical to deal in large quantities of drugs, and therefore large quantities of money. People love money. People often use guns to take money from other people, even those who are breaking the law to (what I perceive to be) a lesser degree than themselves. A person who is engaging in a big money drug deal is under the relatively likely threat of a money-loving gun-possessing person asking for all their goods/money. Therefore, all participants are inevitably going to carry guns with them. Like I've said before, it's like the Cold War; people bring guns to try and reduce the probability of guns being used. At the start of the Cold War, would you have suggested that America build no nuclear bombs? You know it's a ridiculous request when it's quite clear the other guys had nuclear bombs.

Perhaps you might say "do no big drug deals", in which case the reply is "no drugs for you".

So you'd have no problem with this sentence had the guy been selling a pound of crack instead of pot?

So you're a troll, right? Your reply here only subtracts from the level of discussion.

 

[skjalff]

I am not sure about this arguement.. I am a recreational drug user, yet I feel that all psychoactive substances should be prohibited. First off, at the risk of sounding like a jackass - I think that i am orders more intelligent and self-contained than an average human being. I just don't trust an average person on acid to not freak out and 'accidentally' kill my imaginary son (Theres A LOT of psychos/mentally_unstable individuals around).. If H or cid or coke got at least de-criminalized, it is my firm belief that the wourld would go mad.. in a terrible, destructive way..

Now, I feel that the goal of human endeavor is to serve a higher purpose - the only one >>I PERSONALLY CAN FIND<< is serving to the vertical progress of the CIVILIZATION. I want to have left a trace, some tangible good that I have left after me...

That said, I feel that psychoactive drugs can expand my inner horizons, and help me better serve the humanity (Epiphanies, just plain ideas, general awareness..) I am a Biomedical engineer. But I >>AM A FIRM BELIEVER<< that drugs could do no good to the general public (btw of course u realize that I would not bring this arguement in court, its a personal thing, - I do FULLY realize that if i get fucked i get fucked "read; deported" end of story --MY FAULT)


As ChemicalBeauty said if someone carries a gun when making "UNLAWFUL money" that means he is willing to >>quoteROTECT HIS ASSETS<<. He is willing to fire (may be not kill) a deadly weapon to protect the assets he acquired through ways unlawful. Protect FROM OTHER CITIZENS... -> scum or not doesn't really matter much.. I think few will argue that the systems of morals people live by (judge by) vary greatly from person to person and that what may seem reasonable to one may seem excessive/2soft to another.. Yes, from my perspective, the guy suffered unjustly, on the other hand.. 25 or 55 years.. may be just 15..much difference? You would come out a different person anyway... someone u would hate as your present self.. prisons ARE bad.. On the other hand - the sentence was Lawful and at this point in my life (I don't feel too political now) my moral (and societal) integrity means too much to me.. I would feel it would belittle me if I would make money selling drugs... there is always a way to make people's lives better and selling drugs is not one of them... </end babbling, sorry>




skjalff

P.S. I am willing take a large bet that the guy's gonna be amnestied 10 years from now... max...