Teen gets two years for selling one joint.

August 22, 2006 9:05 AM

17 year old kid gets 2 years for selling 20 dollars of pot, enough for 1 joint. The entire town is basically a "No Drug Zone" so they used federal law to give the kid the mandatory 2 years. The Drug Policy Alliance has put together a video that really hits home on the war against the American people.
posted by IronWolve (231 comments total)

But where do YOU stand on the issue, IronWolve, that's what I want to know.
posted by jonson at 9:08 AM on August 22, 2006 [1 favorite]

What the hell kind of a rip-off is $20 for one joint?
posted by Artw at 9:12 AM on August 22, 2006 [2 favorites]

Is it me or does this asshole prosecutor look just like Bill O'Reilly?
posted by geoff. at 9:13 AM on August 22, 2006

I feel bad for the kid, but come on, it is against the law. There's a perfectly good reason not to do drugs, and that is because you could end up in jail. Isn't that reason enough to go without?

I have to say the attitude on that blog in the first link probably mirrors the kids thinking - the heinous crime of not only selling pot (Gasp!), but doing it within 1,000 feet of a school (Double Gasp!!) - the smug defiance of the self-indulgent.

Wake the hell up. The federal governemtn has chosen for whatever reason to make this a top fucking priority. They created an entire law enforcement apparatus around drug prohibition enforcement. They made special laws to keep it away from schools. They are obviously taking it seriously, reagrdless of whether they are wrong. They make the laws. You obey them. You can defy them, but then don't bitch when they throw your ass in prison for breaking the law you were completely aware of and chose to defy. Oh the drug laws are stupid, I see.

I think the insider trading laws are stupid, should I get to break them? Will the internet come to my rescue if I do?
posted by Pastabagel at 9:15 AM on August 22, 2006

Was it a Dutch cone?
posted by NationalKato at 9:16 AM on August 22, 2006

You're right Artw. Street value mandates no more than 10 years but more likely 5.
posted by chillmost at 9:16 AM on August 22, 2006

Pastabagel, I think the point is people are arguing for the repeal of the law...
posted by noble_rot at 9:17 AM on August 22, 2006

After correctly reading the headline again, I realized my previous post makes no sense. Please ignore.
posted by chillmost at 9:17 AM on August 22, 2006

I feel bad for gays, but come on, it is against the law. There's a perfectly good reason not to engage in homosexuality, and that is because you could end up in jail. Is that reason enough to go without?

I have to say the attitude on that blog in the first link probably mirrors the kids thinking - the heinous crime of not only ass fucking (Gasp!), but doing it within 1,000 feet of a mosque (Double Gasp!!) - the smug defiance of the self-indulgent.

Wake the hell up. The Saudi governemtn has chosen for whatever reason to make this a top fucking priority. They created an entire law enforcement apparatus around sodomy prohibition enforcement. They made special laws to keep it away from mosques. They are obviously taking it seriously, reagrdless of whether they are wrong. They make the laws. You obey them. You can defy them, but then don't bitch when they throw your ass in prison for breaking the law you were completely aware of and chose to defy. Oh the moral laws are stupid, I see.
posted by geoff. at 9:18 AM on August 22, 2006 [2 favorites]

There's a perfectly good reason not to do drugs, and that is because you could end up in jail. Isn't that reason enough to go without?

Replace "do drugs" with just about anything and you've got one of the most hollow arguments on MetaFilter today. Good work, PastaBagel. Try it. Replace it with "masturbate" or "martininize your pants" or "swear in the bathroom with the light off".

You can defy them, but then don't bitch when they throw your ass in prison for breaking the law you were completely aware of and chose to defy.

Yeah, because when something makes its otiose nature completely and fully apparent, robbing me of basic freedoms, that's when I like to kick back and take it easy.

Do you lie down like on every issue, guy?
posted by jon_kill at 9:18 AM on August 22, 2006

I think the insider trading laws are stupid, should I get to break them?

Yes, what a fantastic analogy. Your critical thinking is such a gift.

Two years. For a few grams of plant material. How many theives, rapists and other assorted felons get off with less time for serious goddamn crimes? Your black and white lens is worthless in the face of such draconian enforcement.

Replace "do drugs" with just about anything and you've got one of the most hollow arguments on MetaFilter today. Good work, PastaBagel. Try it. Replace it with "masturbate" or "martininize your pants" or "swear in the bathroom with the light off".

No shit. Why are you even here, to wave your arms and act like a fool?
posted by prostyle at 9:19 AM on August 22, 2006 [1 favorite]

Good riddance. Don't be a fool, stay in school, don't sell drugs.
posted by SenshiNeko at 9:20 AM on August 22, 2006

The moral? Never sell to guys with crew-cuts.
posted by wumpus at 9:20 AM on August 22, 2006

...or handlebar moustaches
posted by wumpus at 9:20 AM on August 22, 2006

Let me get this straight:

• Cartoon cats smoking tobacco = bad!
• Real teenagers smoking doobies = good!

posted by keswick at 9:22 AM on August 22, 2006

No keswick, you've got it all wrong: gross generalization = retarded!
posted by prostyle at 9:23 AM on August 22, 2006 [1 favorite]

What's this kid going to learn from 2 years that he isn't going to learn from 2 months?

(there's your setup... now spike that joke into the ground!)
posted by pokermonk at 9:25 AM on August 22, 2006

is there a " no gun zone " around the school i don't think so god bless the u s a
posted by baker dave at 9:26 AM on August 22, 2006

Pastabagel makes a good point. I don't personally agree with the government's stance on drugs or their treatment of drug crimes, but it's not as though it's a big secret. When you elect to break a law, you should do so with full awareness of the consequences. Feigning surprise when you are handed the maximum allowable penalty is just stupid.
posted by casconed at 9:28 AM on August 22, 2006

Obviously this kid will be in far worse shape after spending his 18th and 19th years in prison but I guess the idea is to sacrifice one to save many? Ya know I heard where them heathens back in the day useta toss virgins into volcanoes to make the crops grow.
posted by scheptech at 9:28 AM on August 22, 2006

There's a no-gun-zone around every school, iirc.
posted by wabashbdw at 9:28 AM on August 22, 2006

Hey Pastabagel, are you not familiar with the concept of democracy, i.e. a government of the people for the people by the people? This puts you where, Kohlberg stage 4?

Drug laws are primarily the work of corporations (and racists) such as Dow, who would much rather sell Americans and the rest of the world their synthetic ropes rather than hemp fibers. (Amongst other vested interests that have bought and sold our government over and over again.)

"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."
Federal Bureau of Narcotics Chief Harry J. Anslinger, 1929 (1)

This is the man who pioneered marijuana prohibition.

The law can be wrong, and is. And if you want people to take your opinion seriously, curse less when you express it man.

And yeah, most people could get several joints out of a dub.
posted by Matt Oneiros at 9:29 AM on August 22, 2006

(more) That said, i'm also very much in favor of working intelligently to change said laws. This is not an issue where civil disobedience will be effective, i think.
posted by casconed at 9:30 AM on August 22, 2006

I think the insider trading laws are stupid, should I get to break them?

That's fine , breaking a rule (however debateable it is) needs to produce some kind of effect otherwise some people may think that the rule can be disregarded ; this is rule enforcement mentality.

Yet if I cut your head because a law says I can cut your head if you mispronounce the sacred name of elpapacito (blessed be elpa !) that doesn't tackle the main issue : cutting your head wouldn't have people respect my name (respeck maybe, I like speck) or not take drugs, which _arguably_ should be _effect_ of the law.

So some people think that if a rule "doesn't work" in the sense that it doesn't produce the desidered outcome, it doesn't make sense to respect that law ; yet they are not consciously reject the rule of law, they just think that the law is "stupid"

Which ironically shows they are not that stupid, yet they miss the point why there should be a prohibition to assume drug if I want to and If I don't harm anybody except myself.
posted by elpapacito at 9:31 AM on August 22, 2006

Insider Trading, victims. Sell joint, no victim. You shouldn't compare the two.
posted by tula at 9:32 AM on August 22, 2006

This is not an issue where civil disobedience will be effective, i think.

I dunno, just the other day I was sitting around with my dealer and he struck up the best conversation: "Boy, you know... the high is nice, I love the taste, nice buds... but I really do this to stick it to the goddamn man! Lets go sell some bags to schoolkids on the playground to show them how stupid this is!"

Really!
posted by prostyle at 9:33 AM on August 22, 2006

look, i don't think weed should be illegal. but pastabagel's right - this is a democracy, and the majority do want weed to be illegal. we can't run around hollering about the rule of law and how bush should be indicted for ordering domestic phone taps (arguably, another action that is "harmless" yet illegal, depending on your point of view) and then expect a blind eye to be turned to this kid.

if you want laws enforced across the board, that means the laws you don't like too. it'd be nice if we all lived under a system where everything went down according to our own personal views, but that's not how it is, and everybody knows it. i'm sure this kid knew it too.
posted by sergeant sandwich at 9:33 AM on August 22, 2006

man breaks law, goes to jail, no victim.
posted by wabashbdw at 9:34 AM on August 22, 2006

Is this what you're referring to, baker dave?
posted by Kwantsar at 9:35 AM on August 22, 2006

Anyone know of a google maps-drug free zone mash up? I'd like to, well, um, nevermind.
posted by peeedro at 9:36 AM on August 22, 2006 [1 favorite]

...this is a democracy, and the majority do want weed to be illegal

Citation. This is patently false in various states and the federal government has ignored the 10th amendment to prosecute individuals who were deemed applicable for medical marijuana distribution and growing permits.

...it'd be nice if we all lived under a system where everything went down according to our own personal views, but that's not how it is, and everybody knows it.

Anything else to add to todays special on Reductive Assertion And How it can Benefit You?
posted by prostyle at 9:36 AM on August 22, 2006

You don't need to be against drug laws to think that this is a stupid, axe-grinding post.

The real tragedy here is the going price for marijuana in that town.
posted by mkultra at 9:38 AM on August 22, 2006

What the hell kind of a rip-off is $20 for one joint? - Artw

I read the links and watched the video and I don't see any reference to $20. So it must be IronWolve (wolVE????) editorializing there. The video did say "about a teaspoon". If that's accurate, I'd say IW is probably paying too much for his marijuana.
posted by raedyn at 9:38 AM on August 22, 2006

teen breaks draconian law, goes to jail for two years, people decry it on internet, no victim.
posted by Stauf at 9:38 AM on August 22, 2006

Metafilter: The real tragedy here is the going price for marijuana.
posted by Duncan at 9:39 AM on August 22, 2006

A majority say they want pot to be illegal, maybe. Alas, a majority, I believe, or a very large minority, have tried the shit, and a huge number use it regularly with far less deleterious effects than the majority of legal alcohol users experience and/or cause.

It's a heinous and unjust prohibition, grounded in fear and gain rather than fact and public interest. Examples like this which prove the point are worth expressing outrage over.
posted by fourcheesemac at 9:40 AM on August 22, 2006

(ha, I should have paid attention to the end of the video. It does say $20 in the video. My bad. Still, is that what you all pay for "a teaspoon"?)
posted by raedyn at 9:40 AM on August 22, 2006

You don't need to be against drug laws to think that this is a stupid, axe-grinding post.

Yes, just like y2karls posts on the Iraq Civil War are all axe-grinding posts if you view them through the same lens of denial. Because he ballparked $20 this is all a wash? Ridiculous.
posted by prostyle at 9:41 AM on August 22, 2006

alright. first google hit for "marijuana legalization survey" is this study in california which shows 61% of california voters oppose making marijuana legal for anyone without a prescription.

more recent numbers show that only 41% of americans support legalizing marijuana. that means 59% oppose it. that's a majority.

doesn't matter that 41% is "a lot", it's still not enough.
posted by sergeant sandwich at 9:42 AM on August 22, 2006

israel bombs neighbor, mel gibson goes on drunken rant, ceiling cat appears.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 9:46 AM on August 22, 2006

This will end well.
posted by fixedgear at 9:46 AM on August 22, 2006

...doesn't matter that 41% is "a lot", it's still not enough.

Yes, and King George lost the popular vote by a clear margin. There are larger factors at play than random sampling.
posted by prostyle at 9:47 AM on August 22, 2006

There's a perfectly good reason not to do drugs, and that is because you could end up in jail. Isn't that reason enough to go without?

No. Why? Are we citizens supposed to just bend over and take whatever the federal government prescribes? Is that like Democracy 2.0?

But given the failure and corruption in the War on Drugs, there are many perfectly good reasons to abolish the Controlled Substances Act. Isn't that reason enough to decry the ridiculous 2 year punishment for $20 of pot?
posted by effwerd at 9:48 AM on August 22, 2006

Sigh. We've had this conversation before.

Though it might be the larger issue, the question in this particular case is not whether weed should be legal or not, the question is if the punishment fits the crime.

My opinion? No. A 17 year old kid selling a pathetic amount of weed should not have to do 2 years of time. It's excessive. He is not being punished (no one talks about rehabilitation anymore anyway) for the crime, he is being made into an example.
posted by slimepuppy at 9:49 AM on August 22, 2006

"The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and shit on HEMP."
posted by keswick at 9:49 AM on August 22, 2006

That a democracy works all the time is a fallacy. In fact the democracy itself does a poor job of protecting the minority, just look at pretty much all the civil and gay rights issues ever. Getting people to think rationally and objectively about something the government has spent large amounts of money in propoganda to do the exact opposite is hard, neigh impossible. We're not talking about rezoning a residential area or electing a councilman.
posted by geoff. at 9:49 AM on August 22, 2006 [1 favorite]

...only 41% of americans support legalizing marijuana. that means 59% oppose it. that's a majority.

doesn't matter that 41% is "a lot", it's still not enough.
posted by sergeant sandwich

Right. But I wonder what percentage of americans would think that this sentence is fair and believes that spending $100,000 of their tax money to incarcerate the kid is reasonable.
posted by leftcoastbob at 9:49 AM on August 22, 2006

41% favoring <> 59% not favoring
posted by owhydididoit at 9:50 AM on August 22, 2006

MetaFilter: I can pretend my black & white viewpoint belongs in the blue & white.
posted by Kickstart70 at 9:51 AM on August 22, 2006

There are larger factors at play than random sampling.

care to enlighten us, then? or maybe cite your "patently false in several states" claim?
posted by sergeant sandwich at 9:51 AM on August 22, 2006

israel bombs neighbor, mel gibson goes on drunken rant, ceiling cat appears.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 9:46 AM PST on August 22 [+] [!]

No, no, dude. That totally has a victim.
posted by Stauf at 9:51 AM on August 22, 2006

I don't understand these drug free zones. It's not like you can step over the line and expect to light one up consequence free.

My city has apparently been having a real crack problem of late. Someone had the bright idea of declaring "drug free" zones and putting up signs to let everyone know, but after some debate it was determined that this would probably cost a lot and have no positive effect.

Sometimes the system works!
posted by ODiV at 9:52 AM on August 22, 2006

more recent numbers show that only 41% of americans support legalizing marijuana. that means 59% oppose it. that's a majority.

Ah, democracy means mob rule not balance of power to avoid corruption and abuse. I get it. That explains a lot.
posted by effwerd at 9:53 AM on August 22, 2006 [1 favorite]

i think we all know that pot is illegal and that our drug laws are too extreme. it's basically like when people get caned for chewing gum in singapore or whatever they get caned for there. it's cruel and unusual and does nothing to help our country be a better place to live. also, although it sounds nice to fearful people, the 1,000 feet from a school thing doesn't really make sense. in urban areas pretty much everywhere is within 1,000 feet of a school (like my apartment). it's just an add-on that the system can use to give certain people extra punishment that has little or no bearing on whether actual kids were involved.
posted by snofoam at 9:54 AM on August 22, 2006

"What's this kid going to learn from 2 years that he isn't going to learn from 2 months?"

Some really awesome homemade lube recipes? Poor bastard, there are several schools near my house and now I'm wondering if I'm within 1,000 feet of one of them (not that I'm selling weed or anything). Is there anything else that's illegal within 1,000 feet of a school? This shit is just over the top in a scary sort of way. Why not make it 2,000ft or 10,000? Hell, just make it 100 miles and you can tack 2 years on to every drug sentence.
posted by MikeMc at 9:56 AM on August 22, 2006

i'll be so glad when nuclear winter comes.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 9:56 AM on August 22, 2006

it's just an add-on that the system can use to give certain people extra punishment

Like hate crimes?
posted by keswick at 9:56 AM on August 22, 2006

Your indescribably absurd comparison will carry more weight when Bush and company are actually indicted for their multiple felonies, sergeant sandwich. If we ever both fall into a crazy alternate reality where that actually happens I'll enjoy discussing the matter with you.

It's a pity that poor schmuck doesn't have the Attorney General of the United State to defend his crimes for him, but otherwise your comparison is totally, totally fair. How dare we suggest the president ought to obey the dictates of the constitution, while cravenly asserting that society devastating a teenager's life and costing the public $100K in incarceration costs to exact revenge for the sale of one joint is senseless? I guess we just don't understand logic.
posted by nanojath at 9:57 AM on August 22, 2006

Do you lie down like on every issue, guy?
posted by jon_kill at 9:18 AM PST

In a past post he did say he works in DC.
posted by rough ashlar at 9:58 AM on August 22, 2006

The one thing nobody's touched on yet is that mandatory minimum sentences are a gross violation of constitutional freedoms.

2 years for a single joint on the first offense? What kind of fucktard actually agrees with this line of punishment?
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 9:59 AM on August 22, 2006

the majority do want weed to be illegal.

True, but the majority aren't calling for such strict sentencing. The punishment should reflect the severity of the crime.
posted by yeti at 10:00 AM on August 22, 2006

Though it might be the larger issue, the question in this particular case is not whether weed should be legal or not, the question is if the punishment fits the crime.
posted by slimepuppy

How many people here actually think that the punishment fits the crime?

You can think that marijuana should be illegal; you can think that he should be sentenced because this is against the law; but deep down, how many of you actually, really and truly believe that justice is served by sending this kid to prison for two years?
posted by leftcoastbob at 10:00 AM on August 22, 2006

Democracy wasn't called "tyranny of the majority" for no reason. Also note that the USA is not a democracy, but rather a democratic republic, and it makes a difference.
posted by knave at 10:01 AM on August 22, 2006

i bet if you framed the question "what should be our top law enforcement priorities," marijuana wouldn't even be in the top 50.

legality isn't the issue so much as how you handle it when the law is broken. if i go over time at a parking meter, i'm breaking the law, but i'm not going to jail for two years. but if you sell somebody a tiny amount of a plant at the age of 17, that necessitates a two year stint of anal rape? come the fuck on.
posted by Hat Maui at 10:01 AM on August 22, 2006

er, what everybody said.
posted by Hat Maui at 10:05 AM on August 22, 2006

but pastabagel's right - this is a democracy

Actually, a constutional republic. But don't let the legal documents stop you.

and the majority do want weed to be illegal.

How do you know this?

we can't run around hollering about the rule of law and how bush should be indicted for ordering domestic phone taps (arguably, another action that is "harmless" yet illegal, depending on your point of view) and then expect a blind eye to be turned to this kid.

'Cept the bind eye wasn't turned on this kid. So....when does the "rule of law" get applied to Presidents/Congressmen?

more recent numbers show that only 41% of americans support legalizing marijuana. that means 59% oppose it. that's a majority.

Wow! 0% don't give a damn? Amazing! Because 100-41=59 By your math, no one has the opinion of 'whatever'.
posted by rough ashlar at 10:05 AM on August 22, 2006

This punishment is beyond ridiculously criminal itself. I'm astonished at how many people actually consider it understandable.
posted by acrobat at 10:05 AM on August 22, 2006

On majorities: isn't it an oft-quoted stat that a majority of Americans believe that discussions of biology that hinge on an understanding of the mechanisms of natural selection are evil?

Should that majority dictate education policy?

Simplistic minority-majority dichotomies propped up by democratic jingoism do not make the argument more clear. How many Americans supported Prohibition when it was proposed?

Putting a minor in prison for two years for trafficking minute quantities of a substance with less deleterious effects than alcohol is disproportionate punishment, whether you think soft drugs should be decriminalized or not. The poor lad is being used as a living poster for an "obey or suffer!" mandate from the DEA. He is being used by the state to forward an agenda I can't recall there having been a referendum about.

Happy in Canada,

Cheeseburger Brown
posted by CheeseburgerBrown at 10:07 AM on August 22, 2006

See when people don't have any intrinsic basis to say that marijuana should be illegal (e.g., numerous articles have shown it not to be a danger to public health on the lines of tobacco or alcohol, people don't rob liquor stores for money to buy it, it is non-addictive) they begin to rely on exogeneous reasons for keeping it illegal ("We are in a democracy and most people do not want it"). I do not believe anyone can say that soft drug decriminilization has been bad for the citizens. I do not see Amsterdam in a Darfur state of anarchy, nor London. It has almost got to the point where the argument is "I do not like the Blue Comedy Tour and it should be made illegal, only 21% of people enjoy it, ergo it must be illegal."
posted by geoff. at 10:07 AM on August 22, 2006

When I was younger, a police officer caught my friend and I parked on the side of a residential street, enjoying herbal refreshment. He did not see anything, but did smell it and told us he could search the vehicle. We told the truth, yes we were smoking marijuana, yes we are out here because we can't smoke in our homes.

He gave us a warning and let us go on our way. This is probably because it wasn't worth it to charge a suburban kid with no record for something that doesn't matter too much and doesn't hurt anyone.

I thank the maker that I live in Canada. Our drug laws certainly aren't perfect but I am so glad we do not have mandatory minimums and a more aggressive stance on prosecuting end users. There is, of course, a distinction between use and selling a $20 chunk to someone, but it is pretty small, IMO.
posted by utsutsu at 10:10 AM on August 22, 2006 [1 favorite]

rough ashlar: i got to that page via this one which addresses the drug policy alliance's wording on their press release:


First, I asked the Drug Policy Center for a breakdown of the results not just by agree vs. disagree, but also by the strength of agreement. (Many surveys, including this one, give people several options, and not just two.) Here's what that breakdown ends up being:

Strongly agree with legalization -- 23.5%.
Somewhat agree with legalization -- 17.4%.
Somewhat disagree with legalization -- 11.4%.
Strongly disagree with legalization -- 45.3%.

the agrees add up to 40.9 percent. the disagrees add up to 56.7 percent. i guess 2 percent don't care.

also, thanks to everyone for pointing out that the united states is a constitutional republic, because that's really shot down the whole "it's illegal, duh" argument.
posted by sergeant sandwich at 10:11 AM on August 22, 2006

They created an entire law enforcement apparatus around drug prohibition enforcement. They made special laws to keep it away from schools. They are obviously taking it seriously, reagrdless of whether they are wrong.

Google around and see if you can find any connection between the Bush family and drug importation. Use your best judgement as to which connections are real and which aren't; you're smart enough.

The government takes the drug trade seriously in exactly one sense: it generates serious money.
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:12 AM on August 22, 2006

Hrm. Another story about some kid getting busted for something he knew was illegal, and "OMG COPS are the ReAl TErrORiSTS they KILL people OMG11!!!!"

Is there more to this story that we're not seeing? Sometimes finding a news article on some guys blog isn't the best way to learn the facts about a case.
Ah, here's a bit more: "Lawrence was among 19 people arrested on drug-dealing charges as a result of an undercover operation from January to September 2004 at the former Taconic Lumber parking lot in Great Barrington.

The parking lot, located within 1,000 feet of the Great Barrington Co-operative Preschool and Searles/ Bryant Middle School, was a popular hangout for young adults and reportedly rife with drug activity at the time.

Most of those arrested were accused of selling cocaine, ecstasy and other "hard" drugs, but seven of the defendants -- including Lawrence -- were charged with selling small amounts of marijuana."

He was nailed in a sting. Sounds like he picked the wrong area. I'm looking for more info, but results for his name have been Googlecluttered by pro-pot & anti-prison websites.
And he sold the pot to an undercover police officer.
From everything I've read, it sounds like the guy knew what was going on and knew what he was doing. I also highly doubt that he'll serve the full 2 years in prison. Who knows, he might even just wind up with a fine and probation, or he'll be out in a few months.
posted by drstein at 10:12 AM on August 22, 2006

Baaa, baaa... i <3 drug laws.
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 10:13 AM on August 22, 2006

Man, armed with this snazzy new definition of democracy, I just solved the Iraq problem. The Shia majority should just make it law that all Sunnis must die. And hey, if it's made into law, those Sunnis should just bend over and take it, cuz, you know, it's the law regardless of what you might think of it.
posted by effwerd at 10:13 AM on August 22, 2006

No. Why? Are we citizens supposed to just bend over and take whatever the federal government prescribes? Is that like Democracy 2.0?

Um, didn't you get the memo?
posted by doctor_negative at 10:14 AM on August 22, 2006

oooh, look at me! im a freethinker-- i do drugs!

(two can play at that game, i_am_a_jedi. now go back to playing with your lightsaber.)
posted by keswick at 10:17 AM on August 22, 2006

Um, didn't you get the memo?

I probably smoked it without realizing.
posted by effwerd at 10:18 AM on August 22, 2006

In New Jersey, 96 percent of all those incarcerated under the [drug-free school zone] laws are African American or Latino. Similar disparities were found in other states such as Connecticut and Massachusetts. (according to this report.)

Partially this is because people of color live in more densely populated urban areas and are thus way more likely to be in a school zone.

Apparently even the deputy attorney general of New Jersey agrees with this: "There was a common sentiment shared by the members of the commission including prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, and cabinet members that a review of the school zone law needed to be a priority based on a belief that the law was neither fair nor effective. Based on the painstaking collection and review of data this belief was confirmed. It is gratifying that New Jersey’s report has spurred other states to examine the impact of their drug-free zone laws." (from here)
posted by snofoam at 10:23 AM on August 22, 2006

So, the usual arguments back and forth, but this one made me laugh:

Drug laws are primarily the work of corporations (and racists) such as Dow, who would much rather sell Americans and the rest of the world their synthetic ropes rather than hemp fibers.

So it's the vast polypropylene industry that's conspiring for drug laws? Yeah. 'cause they have to cover all the billions of dollars they sink into polymer research every year and hemp rope would put them right the hell out of business.

This is absolutely the funniest conspiracy theory I've ever read. The ROPE MAKERS. Scary!
posted by GuyZero at 10:25 AM on August 22, 2006 [1 favorite]

keswick, you're once again the frontrunner for the "thread jackass" award.

the prize? the satisfaction that comes with knowing that no one but no one can out-jackass you. congratulations.
posted by Hat Maui at 10:26 AM on August 22, 2006

This is absolutely the funniest conspiracy theory I've ever read.

Apparently you don't read much.
posted by prostyle at 10:28 AM on August 22, 2006

That actually sounded really negative, I didn't mean to give that impression GuyZero. I just meant that it's not something he dreamed up, it's been a popular theory for a while. I doesn't seem that unreasonable, faced with the situation we find ourselves in today with lobbyists and their control on the government. Same ol', same ol'.
posted by prostyle at 10:33 AM on August 22, 2006

A local kid, a very nice, hardworking young man in his early 20's recently killed 3 people and left an infant parentless after a night of drinking and an horrendous crash.

His sentence? One year in prison. I'm sure nearly everyone can describe similar incidents. At least part of the issue must be whether the punishment fits the crime.

Another issue is equal application of law. The same "crime," depending on the community and prosecutor can result in wildly different outcomes. Does anyone think that a politician's son would see even one day in jail?

Pot smokers are easy targets. They are the notches on the belts of many drug enforcement agents. They fill prisons at a ghastly cost to taxpayers and society. I suspect that there are probably 100,000,000 people alive today that, at one time in their life, did something similar. How many of them are now lawmakers and enforcers?

I didn't watch the video or read the story and don't care to. I just hope the kid is "rehabilitated" after his two years, and no longer a danger to us all. Maybe he'll grow up to be President.
posted by private_idaho at 10:40 AM on August 22, 2006 [1 favorite]

Well, ok, I can see how it was probably true back in the 30's, but today? Yes, I agree lobbyists are out of control, but it's insane to hang on to this particular canard. I mean, hemp is probably more expensive than nylon or polypropylene these days. Plus they don't rot. It's just so trivially dismissible.

Why not say it's because of lobbyists who are paid by bud growers in Mexico and BC to prevent free-market competition? Good parallels with prohibition and it works in the xenophobia angle too. Now that is the kind of conspiracy I can get behind. Back-woods BC bud growers put that kid in jail.
posted by GuyZero at 10:43 AM on August 22, 2006

and "OMG COPS are the ReAl TErrORiSTS they KILL people OMG11!!!!"

...the hell? Who are you trying to mock?
posted by Stauf at 10:45 AM on August 22, 2006

look. i think possession laws are stupid. i think mandatory minimum sentencing is stupid. i think any sentence greater than zero days is too much. but i'm also aware that i'm in the minority of public opinion here.

i fully support legalizing marijuana and most other drugs as well. but if i was caught with a pocketful of dope i'm pretty sure i wouldn't be shrieking about how unfair it was. alls i'm saying is that i'm pretty sure this guy knew what he was getting into. casting drug use as civil disobedience or something is fine, if you're willing to go to jail for your cause. civil disobedience isn't whining about it when they haul you away.

oh, and nanojath: i don't think there's anything absurd about the comparison i'm drawing. i'm saying that plenty of people on the other side are willing to turn the other cheek to illegal espionage because they find something appealing about it. i don't think we should do that either.

besides, the linked page made an equally (if not more) absurd comparison to a police brutality story. where's your passive-aggressive "confusion" about that?
posted by sergeant sandwich at 10:48 AM on August 22, 2006

Well, ok, I can see how it was probably true back in the 30's, but today?

If you see how it was true, why would it be false now? The drug laws we have stem from the ones created under those campaigns.

It's just so trivially dismissible.

Yes, on it's face today - I completely agree. But we aren't starting the conversation from scratch, we're starting it from the entrenched position that's been drilled into our heads for decades based on these campaigns started back then. When most people don't understand how or why something occured it's very difficult to have a reasoned debate on the issue.
posted by prostyle at 10:50 AM on August 22, 2006

I bet you that the vast majority of people would say that the kid got too harsh a sentance. Because most people have a fucking sense of scale.
posted by I Foody at 10:53 AM on August 22, 2006

Another story about some kid getting busted for something he knew was illegal, and "OMG COPS are the ReAl TErrORiSTS they KILL people OMG11!!!!"
posted by drstein at 10:12 AM PST on August 22

jesus you suck
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:55 AM on August 22, 2006

Yeah GuyZero. I wish I was a crank too. Unfortunately this is the world we're living in.

I'm not saying DuPont is entirely to blame, they're just one small well funded interest that's contributed to the war on drugs.

Check out The Genesis of Marijuana Prohibition from the excellent Virginia Law Review's inquiry into marijuana prohibition which I'm sure will provide more material than most will ever care to read.
posted by Matt Oneiros at 11:10 AM on August 22, 2006

How many people here actually think that the punishment fits the crime?

For selling pot, it's pretty dang excessive.

For price-gouging, it's not nearly enough.

From the video: "The only thing unusual about Mitchell is the colour of his skin..."

Uh, did anyone else pick up a vaguely racist "Won't someone please think of the white, burb-dwelling drug dealers" vibe off of that?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:11 AM on August 22, 2006

Alvy Ampersand - I think you missed the point of the reference. I think they were pointing out that the current policy is *really* bad for minorities.

Also - recently on digg, via youtube: LEAP
posted by daniel9223 at 11:17 AM on August 22, 2006

Similar drug-war-related article in the NYT. My favorite line:

The lingering question is whether America's drug problem would be worse today had the drug war, nearly 40 years in the making, never been waged. That may be unanswerable.

posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 11:18 AM on August 22, 2006

I think they were pointing out that the current policy is *really* bad for minorities.

How so? Where's the video for the black kid who got busted last week?

'Look out, Kaden, Braden, and Montana, draconic drug sentencing isn't just for your cleaning lady's son anymore! It could happen to YOU!'
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:22 AM on August 22, 2006

Also - recently on digg, via youtube: LEAP
posted by daniel9223 at 2:17 PM EST on August 22

Great link, hadn't seen it. Thanks daniel9223.
posted by patr1ck at 11:24 AM on August 22, 2006

Perhaps this was already said, but I have to make this comment:

Two years in prison is going to turn an otherwise normal, hard working kid into a criminal. He's going to get raped. He's going to get beat up. He's going to become even more pissed off at the world than he already is. He will have a criminal record that will make getting a higher-paying job almost impossible. He'll probably have to resort to selling drugs in the future to make rent.

What's the good that's going to come out of all this? Locking up a 'violent criminal' (remember, all drug crimes are 'violent crimes' to the cops) for selling pot to people who _wanted_ to smoke it? Congratulations drug laws, you just made another criminal.

Except this time, he probably _will_ be violent.
posted by triolus at 11:35 AM on August 22, 2006 [2 favorites]

If you see how it was true, why would it be false now?

Huh? I believe Dow probably paid money to lobbyists in the 30's to suppress hemp. I do not believe they are still paying lobbyists to press the same case.

If your point is that pot/hemp is still being suppressed today because of hysteria created in the 30's, sure, I suppose. The US managed to get over prohibition, racial profiling (mostly - I mean, no one is putting Muslims in internment camps en masse) and not letting women vote. Plus most people stopped going to church and the ones that kept going got a lot more militant. And I think there was something about desegregation between 1937 and now. So, maybe, on the other hand, pot really is bad and people aren't just hanging on to 70 year-old stereotypes. Americans seem to have gotten rid of most of their other negative prejudices.
posted by GuyZero at 11:37 AM on August 22, 2006

MikeMc asks, Is there anything else that's illegal within 1,000 feet of a school?

distribution of sample tobacco products and promotional
items . . . within 1,000 feet of schools (PDF) in Honolulu

placement of tobacco ads that are visible outside from public
property within 1,000 feet of schools. same link, also Honolulu

while on or within 300 feet of school property, . . . solicits another student to participate in the activities of or become a member of a criminal street gang . . . possesses a firearm (Texas)

it is illegal for a registered sex offender to be upon school grounds or within 500 feet of school grounds or areas where school activities involving students less than 18 years of age are taking place. (Idaho)

on public property within 500 feet of school property, alone or in concert with others, intentionally disrupts the conduct of classes or other school activities.
Definitions:
1. Emitting noise of an intensity that prevents or hinders classroom instruction.
2. Enticing or attempting to entice a student away from a class or other school activity that the student is required to attend.
3. Preventing or attempting to prevent a student from attending a class or other school activity that the student is required to attend. (Texas)

The answer seems to be yes, although some things are allowed closer.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 11:41 AM on August 22, 2006

Americans seem to have gotten rid of most of their other negative prejudices.

AHAH-AHAHAHAHAHAHA-HAHAHAHAHA. HAHAHAHAHA.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:44 AM on August 22, 2006

If your point is that pot/hemp is still being suppressed today because of hysteria created in the 30's, sure, I suppose.

You suppose?

The US managed to get over prohibition...

We wouldn't be here right now if that were the case.

...no one is putting Muslims in internment camps en masse

Gitmo doesn't exist?

Americans seem to have gotten rid of most of their other negative prejudices.

I couldn't disagree more, but that's neither here nor there.
posted by prostyle at 11:44 AM on August 22, 2006

Alvy - You asked if anyone caught the "racist" remark - I don't see anyone saying, "yes, I did."

I wonder if anyone caught the racist remark, "your cleaning lady's son."
posted by daniel9223 at 11:48 AM on August 22, 2006

Now you're just getting silly in the pursuit of making a point.

Gitmo exists, but no one has gone around and rounded up all the Muslims in America, taken their possessions and put them all in camps, like they did with Japanese Americans during WWII. Come on. And yes, there's still racism, but are you really saying that the average black American is treated no better today than in 1937? Really?

There was hysteria about pot in the 30's. There's hysteria about pot today. I interpreted your point as being that there's a causal relationship between the two. Also, you push the idea so strongly that I get the impression that you think the primary reason that people are anti-pot is because they've always been that way and people aren't very critical. Perhaps I misinterpret your position.

My point is that considering all the other hysterical horrible things that happened between the 30's and now that have stopped, maybe it takes more than historical hysteria to maintain the idea that pot is bad. Maybe pot is actually bad!

Now, IMO, soft drugs are mostly bad simply because they create a black market that's filled with criminals because they can't turn to the normal legal system for recourse in bad business dealings. But (to use the terms of a previous poster) most people don't care whether pot's problems are intrinsic (it's bad for you) or exogenous (dealers and users can cause violent crimes). Problems is problems and people want 'em to go away.

So, in summary, while I agree that the anti-pot movement has been going on for a long time, I do not think most people today who consider themselves anti-pot do so based on historical reasons.
posted by GuyZero at 12:07 PM on August 22, 2006

My grandmother used to say that hashhish caused the great depression. She was really pissed about it, too. When her husband died, his former bootlegger was one of the pallbearers.
posted by taosbat at 12:19 PM on August 22, 2006

What we are arguing is that the kid was given a sentence that was wholly disporportionate to the amount of "damage" that he was doing to society.

That's fine if that's your argument, but the punishment guidelines are not set based on the damage they did to society.

And the comment that insider trading has a victim? (a) Wrong. (b) Irrelevant. Insider trading has no victims except in the most abstract and hypothetical sense, and in any case, laws don't need victims to be constitutional.

I feel bad for gays, but come on, it is against the law...

A couple of people made similar nonsense arguments. First of all, being gay is not against the law, and laws that prohibit homosexual activity are unconstitutional. And the other things people mentioned are not illegal at all, and any colonial era laws are likely to be struck down anyway.

Furthermore, all of your brilliant fucking example are discrimination/equal protection/due process issues.

What we are talking about in this case is not a lifestyle choice - he was busted for selling pot, not for using it. Last time I checked, selling is commerce, and congress has exclusive right to regulate interstate commerce under the constitution. Furthermore, the Supreme Court during the new deal ruled time and again that basically any commerce is interstate commerce.

The law is constitutional. If the kid thinks the punishment is cruel and unusual, he can take that up to the Supreme Court, but others have before him and failed.

And to all those people arguing that this is undemocratic - my insider trading comment still stands. The same Congress that passed the laws making what Ken Lay did illegal passed these drug laws. They are democratically elected. If you say they aren't really, then that invalidates every law, not just your pet issues.

Do you lie down like on every issue, guy?
posted by jon_kill at 12:18 PM EST on August 22 [+] [!]

Yeah, I lie down on every issues. I got news for you. I am NEVER going to prison for a drug offense, so I don't care what the punishment is. If you plan to sell drugs, you should plan to go to jail on THEIR terms. They have the power and the presumption of moral authority, because they are our collective representatives,at least in theory.

If you want to question that moral authority in practice, that's a fine thing to do, but maintain the moral high ground when you do it. This guy wasn't fighting the system, he was trying to make some money in a private transaction.

Let me ask you something, was he planning to pay sales tax on that transaction, or income tax on the money he made? I guess not. So in addtion to breaking the drug laws, he's evading taxes. But when he gets busted, you all rush to his defense saying he's fighting the man, or some bullshit. He's not. He's trying to turn a quick buck.
posted by Pastabagel at 12:20 PM on August 22, 2006

Americans seem to have gotten rid of most of their other negative prejudices. - GuyZero

You can't be serious. Sure, (slow, painful) progress is being made on many fronts. But America is still a long way from ridding itself from prejudice.
posted by raedyn at 12:29 PM on August 22, 2006

So, the usual arguments back and forth, but this one made me laugh:

Drug laws are primarily the work of corporations (and racists) such as Dow, who would much rather sell Americans and the rest of the world their synthetic ropes rather than hemp fibers.

posted by GuyZero at 1:25 PM EST on August 22 [+] [!]

What's even more hilarious is that these companies invented and patented many of the more exotic street drugs

Maybe Merck, Dow, and Sandoz should track down ecstasy, meth, and LSD dealers and sue them for patent infringement....
posted by Pastabagel at 12:30 PM on August 22, 2006

I wonder if anyone caught the racist remark, "your cleaning lady's son."

How is that racist?

The vast majority of people busted for drugs come from lower income families, and while I don't know Mitchell Lawrence's economic background, it seems fishy to me that although "97% of all people arrested in drug-free zones aren't white," they make a PSA about one of the 3%. Hmm, I wonder who they are targeting with this video?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:32 PM on August 22, 2006

This is most telling:

I am NEVER going to prison for a drug offense, so I don't care what the punishment is.

It's all about you, baby.
posted by effwerd at 12:34 PM on August 22, 2006 [1 favorite]

Pastabagel, he's 17 years old. When you were 17 and mowed the neighbour's lawn, I hope you declared your 5 bucks to the government.
posted by Hildegarde at 12:35 PM on August 22, 2006

Minimum sentencing laws are ridiculous. Why the hell do we have a judiciary then?
When I was a kid I was in a car with a buddy of mine who had some dope on him. I myself had a punch blade and some brass knuckles. Long story as to what was going on at the time, but we were just waiting on a friend when the police asked us why we were there. Well we got arrested and charged. I was charged with weapons (just the brass knuckles - they gave me the punch blade back, makes oodles of sense, doesn’t it?) and marijuana usage. Now if I was an actual criminal (‘dangerous’ is redundant, I was dangerous at the time, just not criminal) they gave me my blade back and sent me on my way. So I went to court and the charges for carrying something used solely for inflicting blunt damage to someone is much less than the charge for smoking dope (again - oodles of sense). I don’t know how many “hey, you got caught smoking some shit huh?” type jokes I had to endure from cops, lawyers and assorted assholes. Really irritating because, although I believe in legalization, I don’t smoke marijuana at all. I guess a lot of people just roll over on those charges, but I was willing to take a blood test, etc. etc. So they dropped that one. So I “got off” with just the weapons charge. The prosecution was interested only in the dope charges and not at all in the weapons charge. They said they’d drop it to a lesser offense, make the fine less than the weapons charge, etc. etc. anything to get a conviction on dope. Except I was competely - and demonstrably - innocent of that. I didn’t even know my buddy had dope on him. And he had even said that. I was willing to admit to the weapons charge, because I was in fact carrying a weapon (several, matter of fact...one of which, the more dangerous one, they gave back). No one seemed to care about that, but the little bag of marijuana made them go nuts.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:35 PM on August 22, 2006

congress has exclusive right to regulate interstate commerce under the constitution.

You misspelled "intrastate".
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:38 PM on August 22, 2006

(and yeah, two years, no priors, pretty damned disproportionate)
posted by Smedleyman at 12:42 PM on August 22, 2006

I am NEVER going to prison for a drug offense, so I don't care what the punishment is. If you plan to sell drugs, you should plan to go to jail on THEIR terms.

Here's to hoping that Pastabagel's door is the one that gets kicked in by the drug warriors during a raid on the wrong address.
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 12:45 PM on August 22, 2006 [1 favorite]

My point is that considering all the other hysterical horrible things that happened between the 30's and now that have stopped, maybe it takes more than historical hysteria to maintain the idea that pot is bad. Maybe pot is actually bad!

I don't understand this in the slightest. What does the timescale of our culture have to do with a plant that's been utilized for thousands of years? It crosses time and borders and cultures, so judging it by the metric of your perspective on American societal change is bizarre, at best.

Now, IMO, soft drugs are mostly bad simply because they create a black market that's filled with criminals because they can't turn to the normal legal system for recourse in bad business dealings.

Soft drugs create the black market? What are you talking about? Again, these plants existed long before we did. The black market is the direct result of these draconian enforcements that bring us here today, it doesn't exist in a vacuum.

But (to use the terms of a previous poster) most people don't care whether pot's problems are intrinsic (it's bad for you) or exogenous (dealers and users can cause violent crimes). Problems is problems and people want 'em to go away.

Yes, and these "problems" are not going to be solved through ignorant, draconian legislation.

...you push the idea so strongly that I get the impression that you think the primary reason that people are anti-pot is because they've always been that way and people aren't very critical.

True. People are not critical when they are comfortable and have nothing to be concerned with except demonization. That's the easy part.

I do not think most people today who consider themselves anti-pot do so based on historical reasons.

Of course they don't, their mental faculties are not programmed with the knowledge that they should see the campaign in that context. That doesn't mean they aren't ignorant. They can't provide any rational justifications for their prejudice. It's called a "War on Some Drugs" for a reason.
posted by prostyle at 12:47 PM on August 22, 2006

I do not think most people today who consider themselves anti-pot do so based on historical reasons.

I'd argue that they are anti-pot based on "the government says so, so it must be true.". Pot is a Schedule 1 drug, which according to the government means:

(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

Both of these statements are patently false.

Combine that with mandatory minimums, which many of us consider to be unconstitutional as they are both cruel and unusual and remarkably racist in application.
posted by kableh at 1:02 PM on August 22, 2006

Doesn't make it right but we all know this is the exception rather than the rule elsewise we wouldn't see it on the intertubes or be discussing it here. My comment is prompted by all the "thank god I'm in Canada comments" above. In my youth I was caught with small amounts of pot by the authorities more than once but was never arrested or even cited. In each case we were forced to throw it into the wind or it was confiscated and this was in one of those hellishly repressive southern red states.
posted by Carbolic at 1:07 PM on August 22, 2006

The law can be wrong, and is. And if you want people to take your opinion seriously, curse less when you express it man.

Thanks for taking issue with the presentation of the argument, rather than the argument itself. Look, you fight the law in three ways - (1) violence; (2) non-violent disobedience; (3) change the law within the system.

The 17 year old in question was doing none of the above, and I dare say most of the comments here don't fit into these categories either. You want to fight the system violently? I think we all know you lose. Civil disobedience to change the drug trafficking laws? That's a stretch. Possession and use is one thing, trafficking is another matter altogether. But if you want to argue for the legalization of marijuana, you need to be prepared to parse out how it is different than any other drug that is also illegal. Because failing to do so means that you are advocationg the legalization of crack and heroin. And again, you'll lose.

And you need to be able to accept the fact that if it's illegal for tobacco companies to sell cigarettes to minors, it should also be illegal for drug dealers to do the same.

Drug laws are primarily the work of corporations (and racists) such as Dow, who would much rather sell Americans and the rest of the world their synthetic ropes rather than hemp fibers. (Amongst other vested interests that have bought and sold our government over and over again.)

There is no sophistication in arguing insane conspiracy theories. Please don't preach to me about racist corporations owning the govt. blah blah. Plently of drug dealers are racists, homophobes, and misogynists too. Some of them buy off cops and bribe officials. But they collectively have no clout in government because they pay no taxes.

Also, I'm not naive enough to think that legalized marijuana would achieve some magical status in society. If marijuana is legal, you're going to be buying it from Philip Morris and RJR and whoever makes cigarettes now.

I f youare willing to accept that these racist corporations are going to make a fortune in a legal-drug regime, then maybe you can see past your own prejudices for a moment and realize that the best argument for legalizing drugs is that a $60 billion industry becomes subject to taxation.
posted by Pastabagel at 1:09 PM on August 22, 2006

This is a depressing case - it reminds me that drug law will probably never see as much progress in our lifetime as other social issues like homosexual rights, etc. While drug law causes millions of people to rot in jail, the public perception is that they're there because they wanted to get high. It's cast as a recreation, not a fundamental rights issue.

It's like if the government imposed a 10 year minimum sentence on riding waterslides. Yes, it's a stupid law, and many children will end up in the slammer as a result; but who is going to knowingly risk 10 years in the can for the right to waterslide?

For the same reason, I don't see pro-marijuana activists ever engendering the same sort of tenacity and self-sacrifice that other social issues have occasioned. Black people were willing to protest and get thrown in jail because they were arguing for basic human rights, and without them their quality of life was terrible. This is not so with marijuana. I could easily have gone my entire life without doing bonghits and I would probably not be that much poorer for it.
posted by kfx at 1:13 PM on August 22, 2006

I don't understand this in the slightest. What does the timescale of our culture have to do with a plant that's been utilized for thousands of years? It crosses time and borders and cultures, so judging it by the metric of your perspective on American societal change is bizarre, at best.

I believe this whole thing started when I said that I thought that implicating Dow in the war on drugs because it was good for their rope business was crazy talk. I was not the one who started with lobbyists in the 30's. My position now, as then, is that that is a crazy conspiracy theory. Companies lobby for their vested interests all the time, but it takes more than corporate lobbying to start a "war".

Soft drugs create the black market?

No. That was poorly phrased. My real point was that most people don't care about the difference between drugs and drug-related crime & violence. Which, in truth, I agree is naive.
posted by GuyZero at 1:13 PM on August 22, 2006

Let me ask you something, was he planning to pay sales tax on that transaction, or income tax on the money he made? I guess not. So in addtion to breaking the drug laws, he's evading taxes. But when he gets busted, you all rush to his defense saying he's fighting the man, or some bullshit. He's not. He's trying to turn a quick buck.
posted by Pastabagel at 2:20 PM CST on August 22 [+] [!] [↑]

Too bad he wasn't in Nevada. Otherwise the government could have tacked on failure to pay an annual registration fee.

Damn hippies and their greed.
posted by Leather McWhip at 1:16 PM on August 22, 2006

There is no sophistication in arguing insane conspiracy theories. Please don't preach to me about racist corporations owning the govt. blah blah. Plently of drug dealers are racists, homophobes, and misogynists too. Some of them buy off cops and bribe officials. But they collectively have no clout in government because they pay no taxes.

Most of the "conspiracy theories" behind the prohibtion of marijuana and other drugs in the early 20th century comes from "The Emporer Wears No Clothes", online here. Is it incorrect? Probably. Insane? Please. Lobbyists buy laws everyday, whether its the RIAA or Indian casino interests.

You're really missing the point of the arguement, not that the OP made it eloquently. See the above link for a much better interpretation.
posted by kableh at 1:16 PM on August 22, 2006

Companies lobby for their vested interests all the time, but it takes more than corporate lobbying to start a "war".

The "War On Drugs" didn't start in earnest until the 60s. Marijuana prohibition started much earlier, and was the subject of the OPs post. Don't conflate the two.
posted by kableh at 1:17 PM on August 22, 2006

Pastabagel you again attack all the issues around marijuana and don't attack the non-linearity of the punishment to the crime or the fact that he shouldn't be going to jail for this anyway. One can make the case against intoxication itself (a la Neitzsche in regards to alcohol), but you have yet to do so. Then the question is do we want impose criminal penalties for those whose personal moral reasoning does not align with ours? Which contradicts "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness" section of our constitution.

But since you know, you don't smoke it doesn't really matter does it? Kind of like I don't care if women have the right to vote because I've got news for you: I am a man!
posted by geoff. at 1:18 PM on August 22, 2006

hitler
posted by Kifer85 at 1:20 PM on August 22, 2006 [2 favorites]

It also needs to be added that not only is the youth in question 17, but he was selling a dub. For those of you like "pastabagel" who clearly have no conception of marijuana, how it is sold, etc., that is generally the smallest amount of weed one can buy on the street unless they have a good relationship with their dealer (in which case you may be able to buy half of that, a dime bag, and even rarer at least in my experience a nickel bag).

My point is, he wasn't selling ounces of weed or even pounds. He was selling a single bag, so it is best to not compare him to big-time drug dealers.
posted by nonmerci at 1:26 PM on August 22, 2006

I got news for you. I am NEVER going to prison for a drug offense, so I don't care what the punishment is.

That is so incredibly selfish and irresponsible. It's part of your responsibility as a citizen to care about what the State does in your name.

And cops NEVER "find" drugs on people who weren't holding them, or plant quantities of drugs in houses that they raid by mistake. So only guilty people are ever punished, while innocent bagels always go unpunished. What are you smoking?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 1:35 PM on August 22, 2006

I could easily have gone my entire life without doing bonghits and I would probably not be that much poorer for it. - kfx

Unless you've got epilepsy or severe pain and/or persistent muscle spasms from multiple sclerosis, a spinal cord injury or disease, severe arthritis, cachexia, anorexia, severe nausea from cancer & cancer drugs or HIV/AIDS & the drugs that treat it, etc. If you fall into one of these groups (all of whom are able to obtain licences for medicinal use of merijuana in Canada) the use of marijuana can poitively impact their quality of life.

There is also research on Alzhiemers Parkinsons Glaucoma and other diseases that show some promise for marijuana as a treatment. Nothing conclusive at this point, AFAIK.

I don't see pro-marijuana activists ever engendering the same sort of tenacity and self-sacrifice that other social issues have occasioned. Black people were [...] arguing for basic human rights, and without them their quality of life was terrible. This is not so with marijuana.

The people I mention above are generally quite sick and very busy managing their illnesses and trying to stay alive / achieve an acceptable quality of life. Certainly there a lot of users that don't fall into any of these categories, but there are a number of people that could benefit from use of this substance and their quality of life is negatively impacted by the 'War on Drugs'.

You're essentially saying "it doesn't affect me" and turning a blind eye to those it does affect. That's your choice. But don't assume just because it's okay for you that means it's okay for everyone.
posted by raedyn at 1:36 PM on August 22, 2006

Pastabagel, what exactly is the point you are arguing? Are you saying that a 2 year sentence for selling a dime bag to an under cover cop is a reasonable punishment? For 17 year old with no record? So far you've been reiterating that it's against the law. No one is debating you on that, people are just saying that the law is unjust, especially in this particular application.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 1:38 PM on August 22, 2006

where's your passive-aggressive "confusion" about that?

I object to this, my confusion is strictly aggressive.

But I don't know why I bother. Hardly any mainstream politicians will touch drug law reform with a ten foot pole and good luck with the ones who will. The closest thing to a liberal politician we've had in the white house in the last 25 years wasn't ready to admit to going any further than "not inhaling" (shit, Newt Gingrich is less square than that) and his first surgeon general got shitcanned for suggesting that we think about marijuana legalization. No conversation could be more pointlessly theoretical.
posted by nanojath at 1:41 PM on August 22, 2006

A couple of people made similar nonsense arguments. First of all, being gay is not against the law, and laws that prohibit homosexual activity are unconstitutional.

Pastabagel, you know how that happened? A minority of people realized that some laws were bullshit and needed to be changed, and they didn't pipe down until the changes wentt into effect. And if they all shut up about it tomorrow, it would go right back to the way things were before. It's just another one of those cases where the majority's heads are so far up their asses that they can't see who they're stepping on.
posted by hermitosis at 1:42 PM on August 22, 2006

Pastabagel you again attack all the issues around marijuana and don't attack the non-linearity of the punishment to the crime or the fact that he shouldn't be going to jail for this anyway. One can make the case against intoxication itself (a la Neitzsche in regards to alcohol), but you have yet to do so. Then the question is do we want impose criminal penalties for those whose personal moral reasoning does not align with ours? Which contradicts "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness" section of our constitution.

That isn't in the Constitution, it's in the Declaration of Independence. But whatever.

Is the argument here that the punishment is too severe, or that marijuana should be legal? Because not only does the OP not make that clear, the linked blog doesn't either. The punishment issue if simple - no it isn't too severe. The substance is banned. He shouldn't even have it, let alone be selling it. And considering that in Mass. you could spend 6 months in jail for selling alcohol to a minor, 2 years for selling a banned substance near a school doesn't strike me as too severe.

As to the legalization, I refer to my point earlier. Everyone lobbies. The ACLU lobbies. Drug legalization groups lobby. So what? The law doesn't expire every year and get passed anew, it's already on the books. So you have to argue (a) that the previous reasons for banning it are factually and morally wrong; and (b) there would be some benefit to legalizing it and not legalizing the other drugs. But keep in mind that if you only legalize marijuana, you do nothing about the drug war - all that apparatus stays in place to restrict the flow of the other drugs.

Personally, I'm not against legalizing it. It's not a big deal for me one way or the other because unlike the juvenile arguments about gender and race, drug use is indisputably a choice. But I could see legalizaing all of them and taxing them to an insane degree. People are going to get the stuff anyway I suppose, even if it means putting themselves in danger of becoming a victim of a crime or going to prison, at least this way they get it safely, the quality is controlled, etc.

Furthermore, the interdiction apparatus could be dismantled and the money spent on something else, like rehab.

But this kid going to prison? I see nothing wrong with that. Don't downward comparison me with how murders and rapists got less. They should have gotten more. This kid ruined his own life and that of his family because he didn't think things through. He has two years to learn the difference between trying to fight the system and trying to beat the system.
posted by Pastabagel at 1:50 PM on August 22, 2006

So in addtion to breaking the drug laws, he's evading taxes.
posted by Pastabagel

Oh, for the love of pete. This kid, evading taxes on $20 of weed, is obviously one of our most fervent criminal masterminds. Tax evasion! What's next, fucking jaywalking?!
posted by NationalKato at 1:54 PM on August 22, 2006

What we are talking about in this case is not a lifestyle choice - he was busted for selling pot, not for using it.

Possession and use is one thing, trafficking is another matter altogether.

This kid isn't a dealer and he's certainly not a trafficker. He was a dumb punk hard up for cash.

In general, traffickers are the ones who buy lots of cell phones, travel on commercial airlines a lot and have about 10 to 20 runners driving rental cars around the country, loaded or empty. Dealers, real dealers, are the ones who meet and greet the loaded runners, or are at least the beneficiaries of what the runners deliver. Below the dealer are a mix of other dealers and rich kids who support their habit by buying low and selling high. This kid is about six degrees of separation away from "dealer" status.

And you need to be able to accept the fact that if it's illegal for tobacco companies to sell cigarettes to minors, it should also be illegal for drug dealers to do the same.

Where did this come from? He sold it to an undercover cop. Was the cop a minor? And who is arguing that minors should have free access to controlled substances?

He has two years to learn the difference between trying to fight the system and trying to beat the system.

I think you are the only one in the thread characterizing this kid's street slangin as "fighting the system."
posted by effwerd at 1:59 PM on August 22, 2006

[expletive deleted] -- There a difference between "selling a dime bag to an under cover cop" and selling a dime bag to an under cover cop in a school zone. In this case, the difference amounted to an extra couple years.

Even the Drug Policy Alliance uses this oops-gee-golly-we-accidentally-forgot-to-mention-the-part-that-doesn't-fit-perfectly when they say, "It takes two things: A bad law. And a cruel prosecutor."

No! That's a lie. They know it and any person with an elementary-school education knows it! That it's a bad law is (obviously) arguable. That the prosecutor is cruel is likely untrue, but still arguable. They conveniently and completely forgot to mention the single most important component, and the one component that's not in dispute: the guy that chose to ignore the law and deal drugs in a school zone!

And then, after such grossly obvious attempts to force a situation to reflect their position as this, the reform proponents seem truly amazed when nobody (except other potheads, of course) takes them or their position seriously?

Bottom line: Mitchell Lawrence knew the job was risky when he took it. He gambled and lost. Tough shit for Mitchell.
posted by CodeBaloo at 2:20 PM on August 22, 2006

How is everybody overlooking the upside? This kid is 17, he's got his whole life ahead of him, and he's getting a $100,000 taxpayer-paid trip to jail for two years after having done the absolute literal least he could do to get there! Sure, he's fucked as far as college is concerned, and repeatedly fucked as far as his ass is concerned, and will likely emerge with no demonstrable skills aside from folding laundry and dealing more grass, but we're giving him two things that college can't provide. 1) Streed cred, and 2) a huge network of higher-level dealers and potential customers!

Actually, college can easily provide the second of those, but not the street cred!

Of all the people discussing constitutionality and majorities determining the laws of our land and what not, nobody has mentioned that this kid actually has no say in those laws which he clearly disagrees with himself. He's seventeen, and tried as an adult, but without the rights to vote on those laws for which he is tried. Anyway...

My favorite political moment of my time: Sam Donaldson interviewing Bill Bradley in the 2000 primaries.

Sam: Did you ever smoke marijuana back in the 60's?
Bill: Yes. Didn't you, Sam?
Sam: Well, yes.

(I'm paraphrasing)
posted by Navelgazer at 2:39 PM on August 22, 2006

Oh, and Pastabagel, I don't smoke grass either, because it just isn't my thing, and I tend to poison myself with tobacco and alcohol instead, which hurt me much, much more. Still, I can see the pot smoking is at the very least a basic rights issue, which shouldn't be at the whim of people who just don't do it themselves, and so are cool with others going to jail for it. But if that's not enough, hopefully the fact that an ungodly amount of your tax dollars are going to keep these non-violent offenders locked up can give you pause.
posted by Navelgazer at 2:42 PM on August 22, 2006

CodeBaloo, how can disregard the welfare of this kid so callously? He's going to spend two years in prison, and he's likely going to spend those two years being raped and beaten. How is that justice? What fucked up world do you live in where this punishment is proportional or in any way excusable? He's 17. He's a dumb kid, and you know what? He's probably not a dealer. He probably just sold some of his own stash when the narc asked for a hookup.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 2:57 PM on August 22, 2006

but pastabagel's right - this is a democracy, and the majority do want weed to be illegal.
No, this isn't a democracy, this is a constitutional republic. The 'majority' has no legislative authority, nor does the majority have any right to vote away my rights. The majority has no authority to dictate to adults what chemicals they can use. Or, as I usually put it: It's my fucking body.

Your argument inherently claims that people in this country do not own their bodies. There is no way around that.

we can't run around hollering about the rule of law and how bush should be indicted for ordering domestic phone taps (arguably, another action that is "harmless" yet illegal, depending on your point of view) and then expect a blind eye to be turned to this kid.

I can. Drug laws are unconstitutional. Laws preventing domestic spying are not.
posted by spaltavian at 3:02 PM on August 22, 2006

“The punishment issue if simple - no it isn't too severe.”

Why do big government neo-liberals insist on spending money to imprison people for chickenshit like this? Instead of just fining him and actually recouping the money for the police time, we shove him into prison where we have to pay to feed and house him for two years. Why is the answer always more jails, more laws, more government instead of less? The judge (who we paid to sit there and do essentially nothing because of the manditory sentence) could have taken care of this whole matter in 10 minutes. It is the law, but it is a poor law and it forces people to give the prison system money arbitrarily.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:27 PM on August 22, 2006

Instead of just fining him...

Presumably the slipperly-slope counter-argument to this one is that it's essentially a free pass for wealthy people to break the law.
posted by GuyZero at 3:32 PM on August 22, 2006

Navelgazer -- Lawrence is not a victim. He chose this path. Did he screw himself? Looks like it. And, as tight as money is, I have no problem paying eight one-thousandths of one cent ($100,000 estimate divided by 131,302,000 FY2005 individual income tax returns filed) to lock Mr. Lawrence up for two years.

[expletive deleted] -- First, we should probably pick a side and stick with it. Not you specifically, but this whole "he's just a kid" thing. In this conversation, he's just a kid, not able to think for himself, not responsible for his actions, a poor lost babe in the woods. Yet in other hot-button issues, a 13-17 year old knows perfectly well what they are doing and are perfectly capable of being responsible for their actions. Which is it?

That aside, I don't see it my attitude as overly "callous". Mr. Lawrence apparently cared so little about his own welfare that he jeopardized it. Why, then, should I express any more concern for his welfare than he did?

The "fucked up world" I live in is one in which society takes a parental tone and says, "Everybody listen up! If you get caught selling drugs within 1000' of a school, you'll get two years in prison. Minimum! Everybody got that? Good. So I'm not gonna hear any whining if you ignore the rules and get two years in prison, right? Now, if you don't like the rules we'll talk about 'em... and maybe even change 'em. But until then, that's the law 'round here. Deal with it."

And as for the dumb kid, not a dealer, personal stash bit... for all the evidence there is to make those pull-'em-outta-thin-air assumptions, one could just as justifiably say he knew exactly what he was doing, is an experienced drug dealer, and got caught portioning a dime bag out of his 20kg for-sale stash.
posted by CodeBaloo at 3:42 PM on August 22, 2006

Well, it's certainly not a free pass.

All the money wasted on drug laws and imprisonment is absurd. We's save more money with legalization. Use half the money to cut taxes and the rest to beef up our intelligence services... to spy on terrorists, not Americans.
posted by spaltavian at 3:43 PM on August 22, 2006

[Why do] we shove him into prison where we have to pay to feed and house him for two years?

Only half-jokingly: because if people get this distraught over a drug dealer getting a two-year sentence, they'd really throw a wobbly if we had executed him.
posted by CodeBaloo at 3:50 PM on August 22, 2006

2 years for selling something that could at most have the user and their friends lying around laughing at nonsense for a few hours, doing very little mental or physical damage in the process.

How many people get killed in the US from alcohol every year?

And how many from Cannabis?

What does a 17 year old get for selling an illegally purchased 24 pack of beer to someone?

madness, complete and utter madness.
posted by twistedonion at 3:53 PM on August 22, 2006

one could just as justifiably say he knew exactly what he was doing, is an experienced drug dealer, and got caught portioning a dime bag out of his 20kg for-sale stash.

Ha! Yeah, an experienced dealer who knows exactly what he's doing and needing to unload 20 kg will be slangin a pittance on the street, in a school zone, to an unknown customer without asking if he's a cop, for $20. Yeah, that makes a whole lot more sense than the contrasting assumptions.
posted by effwerd at 3:56 PM on August 22, 2006

big government neo-liberals

Smedlyman, you really think it was liberals who passed those laws and try to enforce them?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:07 PM on August 22, 2006

But until then, that's the law 'round here. Deal with it.

You still not stepped out of the wild west, cowboy?

The real interesting thing about this web thing we all type crap into, is that it will document in great detail how easily pretty free countries, with liberty lovin folk can be transformed into crazy assed fundamentalist regimes.

Too many citizens just don't give enough of a shit to realise when Government starts getting a bit... crazy assed fundamentalist.

The law against cannabis cannot be rationally defended. Any law that can't be rationally defended should not be a law. But then, you need rational people running your country and not some ex-coke snorting hypocrite.

How many years did the coke-head get? oh, right... law doesn't apply to the wealthy and powerful in America, right?
posted by twistedonion at 4:17 PM on August 22, 2006

60 percent of Americans apparently now think the Iraq was was a mistake. 'Nuff said, no?

If you ask any random sample of Americans if they think something *currently illegal* should remain illegal, you will almost certainly get a majority in agreement. It's a clear case of a biased question. Many people will not admit to any sympathy for an "illegal" activity in which they may even take part occasionally, even when promised anonymity. A similar number probably would tell you they've never seen porn and think it should be sharply restricted, and that drivers who get behind the wheel after having even one drink are bad people.

I don't believe those numbers reflect what people actually believe or do in private, not at all. If marijuana were legal, I bet a majority of Americans would soon be strongly supportive of this. And a significant number would come out about smoking the stuff.

There is no reason for it to be illegal, certainly not if alcohol is legal. It causes *no harm* to many people who use it regularly. (Even if it did, that doesn't make a case for illegality unless that harm is born as a social cost.) Marijuana has been linked to *no* diseases, and even has apparent medicinal value for many.

Wait until they finally prove the pot mitigates or stops Alzheimer's disease. Then the tide will turn. When millions of Americans see they are being denied a beneficial product because of a century-old bit of racist paranoia, and the profit motives of chemical and alcohol companies.

I'm lighting one up now, for America and for Jesus.
posted by fourcheesemac at 4:19 PM on August 22, 2006

Effwerd, it doesn't make any more sense. That was the point. We can't just make up random details as we go along simply to make our view more sympathetic. Well, we can, but it hurts more than it helps.
posted by CodeBaloo at 4:19 PM on August 22, 2006

“Presumably the slipperly-slope counter-argument to this one is that it's essentially a free pass for wealthy people to break the law.” - posted by GuyZero

Except for...judges. It’s illegal. The question is one of punishment. You have a first time offender selling one joint. He’s not a threat to society. He’s not a racketeer.

“The "fucked up world" I live in is one in which society takes a parental tone and says....”
and
“they'd really throw a wobbly if we had executed him.” - posted by CodeBaloo

This is a question of policy. The case of spending tax money on Mr. Lawrence is not being debated except in the aggregate - which does amount to a large sum of money. (Although it would be far worse if we legislatively singled out Lawrence - half joking because no one is contemplating that).
Furthermore law and policy should not be based on some a priori abstraction whatever society’s intent.
This is why we have judges and why judges make rulings. Society used to dictate such things and as a result we had stonings. We don’t do that anymore because we recognize that society is far more complex and organic. If we try to force it - and by extension people in general - into a pre-determined ideological state - however good intentioned - we run into catastrophic unintended consequences.
The harm to society by the state manditory sentencing laws are greater than the harm from this particular type of situation. But I cannot see any situation in which a manditory sentance is warranted or justified. There is a reason we have checks and balances - whatever the legal debate or our opinions on what this kid deserves or doesn’t.

I don’t think he deserves two years, some here do.
But it’s a moot point because the legislature has forced us to pay for the way they think every situation like this should be handled regardless of how a judge would rule in the particular. The will of the people supports not only the laws, but the system itself. Inherent in that system are protections from and checks on societal excess one of which is the judiciary. Maybe he’s got tons of mitigating evidence. Maybe he’s a textbook case for the need of the mercy of the court because he’s supporting his ailing mother and siblings. Maybe Lawrence is destined to be the next Scarface and he should get more time. We’ll never know any of that though because the judge has no say in the matter.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:19 PM on August 22, 2006

“Smedlyman, you really think it was liberals who passed those laws and try to enforce them?” -posted by Kirth Gerson

No, I don’t. I said neo-liberals. Pro-big government assheads. Kinda like the guys who are in power now. Pointedly misusing labels there. Bit tongue in cheek. A rose by any other name...
posted by Smedleyman at 4:25 PM on August 22, 2006

twistedonion -- Since you took issue with the parental-tone speech, why not complete your comment in that context.

My societal "parent" speech said, essentially, "The law's the law. If you don't agree with the law, get it changed. But until it's changed, the current law applies."

You came back with, essentially, "I don't agree with the law." So what are you advocating, then, that's any different than what I said? Nothing in that "wild west" speech prohibits you from disagreeing with the law or working to change it.

Are you saying that if one doesn't agree with the current law, one should simply disregard it? Or that the laws and their penalties should only apply to those who agree with it, and those who disagree should be exempt?
posted by CodeBaloo at 4:28 PM on August 22, 2006

The kid was entrapped. First of all, the kid didnt approach crewcut man to sell dope--crewcut man asked to smoke some bud with him, and then asked to buy what he had. Second, he became the poster boy for the DA who wanted to send a message to kids who loiter and smoke pot in the area. Third, he got the 2 year sentence because of the 1000 ft ammendment to the law; even though he wasnt selling to any school kids.

The real question here is what the hell are authorities doing giving out harsh penalties to pot smokers for when there are obviously higher priority crime concerns. How the hell does this action protect private citizens? Did you know its going to cost that city/state $100,000 a year to keep that boy in priso.

And to the guys who agree with the punishment, god help you when the law unfairly treats you. Shame on you.
posted by DudeAsInCool at 4:33 PM on August 22, 2006 [1 favorite]

So, this 17 year old kid...he's black, right?

Oh, and $100,000 in prison costs for $20 worth of pot? Nah, I doubt there could have been *any* better way of spending that hundred grand.
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:34 PM on August 22, 2006

He's white. Happens to more minorities--the jails are full of minority kids, not that the system is biased...right?
posted by DudeAsInCool at 4:37 PM on August 22, 2006

Pastabagel and CodeBaloo think it's completely reasonable to destroy a boy's life for selling $20 worth of pot.

I put it to the rest of you that it really isn't worth debating people with such cruel and heartless beliefs.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 4:39 PM on August 22, 2006

Smedlyman -- Same point as to twistedonion: okay, I get you don't think the law or the sentence is fair. So until it is corrected, what to do in the meantime... whoever doesn't like a law should simply be exempted from it?

And as for your creative cut-n-paste attribution --
"...Lawrence is destined to be the next Scarface and he should get more time..."
and
"shove him into prison where we have to pay to feed and house him for two years." -- posted by Smedleyman
(What's good for the goose...)
posted by CodeBaloo at 4:45 PM on August 22, 2006

lupus_yonderboy -- I can't speak for Pastabagel, but you don't seem to get my point: the law is the law.

A previous poster, on your apparent side of the debate, complained about the law being applied unevenly. Yet now, it seems the argument is in favor of the law being applied unevenly.

The fact that is was $20 of pot is entirely irrelevant. If the law mandated a two-year sentence for littering, and I'm found guilty of littering, I get two years. If I don't agree with the war on litter, I could work for change... but that doesn't exempt me from the current law.
posted by CodeBaloo at 4:54 PM on August 22, 2006

My societal "parent" speech said, essentially, "The law's the law. If you don't agree with the law, get it changed. But until it's changed, the current law applies."

so, essentially, you think the people who protested and "broke the law" in the sixties against racial segregation shouldn't have?

The blacks and whites in South Africa who had relationships and then got sent to prison for it... they shouldn't have broken that law and instead waited for the law to be changed?

How about the women in Afghanistan who had to wear those veils. You think they deserved the punishment they received if they took the veil off?

But that's not America, you need to help those people fight against retarded laws, right?

You came back with, essentially, "I don't agree with the law." So what are you advocating, then, that's any different than what I said? Nothing in that "wild west" speech prohibits you from disagreeing with the law or working to change it.

As you'll probably guess I advocate breaking any law you find oppressive and just downright daft.

I think it's a disgrace you, or anyone else thinks this kid deserves 2 years in prison and a life in ruins, thanks to a $20 joint.
posted by twistedonion at 4:56 PM on August 22, 2006

How the hell does this action protect private citizens?

DudeAsInCool -- If my kid goes to the school in the school zone where Lawrence was popped, this action keeps one more drug dealer away from my child. That is how it protects private citizens.
posted by CodeBaloo at 4:59 PM on August 22, 2006

As you'll probably guess I advocate breaking any law you find oppressive and just downright daft.

Are you sure that's the position you want to take? That sure opens a lot of doors.
posted by CodeBaloo at 5:01 PM on August 22, 2006

Are you sure that's the position you want to take? That sure opens a lot of doors.

Yes.

If my kid goes to the school in the school zone where Lawrence was popped, this action keeps one more drug dealer away from my child.

And if your child becomes that "drug dealer" will you support the ruination of his life?
posted by twistedonion at 5:05 PM on August 22, 2006

lupus_yonderboy, I do believe you're right.

Smedlyman, sorry I missed the tongue/cheek interaction. It didn't sound like something you'd say.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:15 PM on August 22, 2006

Great. Now that that's out of the way, I'll look for your support of the drunk drivers who think drunk driving laws are daft. And your support of Bush, since he seems to feel laws requiring warrants are oppressive. And and your support of the crack dealers (including those dealing in school zones) who surely feel the penalties are too severe. And your support of Haliburton, since they feel the whole red-tape-government thing is overly oppressive. And on, and on, and on.

I don't know how I'd react if it were my kid. On one hand, it's my kid and I should advocate for him. On the other, my boys are raised knowing that there positive and negative consequences for their actions.
posted by CodeBaloo at 5:17 PM on August 22, 2006

Effwerd, it doesn't make any more sense.

Actually, if you had read the way I framed your assumption, you would realize that it makes no sense whatsoever. While the contrasting assumptions, though presumptive, certainly had a higher chance of being correct given what was known. There is no way someone with 20 kilos is going to be bothering with selling a couple of grams on the street. Even if there were a chance, it would be nil in comparison to the other option, that he was a naif picked off by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I felt safe in my assumption and if DudeAsInCool is correct in his facts, my educated guess was much better than what you pulled out of your ass.
posted by effwerd at 5:18 PM on August 22, 2006

it makes no sense whatsoever

Which is exactly what was intended! Which scenario is more or less likely is meaningless. The point was that the poster was 100% pure guessing, and using those guesses in his argument, and that was just as useless as if I had used made up claims to support my position.
posted by CodeBaloo at 5:25 PM on August 22, 2006

Which scenario is more or less likely is meaningless.

No it's not. There is a very high likelihood that this 17 year old selling a couple of grams for $20 to an undercover cop without asking if he's a cop on the street in a school zone is a naif. There is zero likelihood that he is an experienced dealer who knows exactly what he's doing. It's the difference between an educated guess and wild speculation.
posted by effwerd at 5:36 PM on August 22, 2006

Painful discussion to read. I apologize for the long post.

Two years in prison - let's frame that a bit. I did a quick search on Google for "two years in prison." Apparently, you can also get two years in prison for:
- Participating in the sexual assault of a 15-year-old girl
- Breaking into more than 12 mailboxes and using the personal information to make credit card purchases.
- Participating in the Whitewater fraud mess.
- Stealing and attempting to sell the source code of a software product from a large software company.

First offense, twenty bucks worth of pot? I don't care who it is, that mandates a dopeslap and a "get the hell out of my courtroom & don't let me see you again" ruling, not two years in prison.

Mandatory sentencing for drug offenses has been a contentious issue, because it's seen as yet another defining edge between liberals and conservatives. Doesn't matter that eveyrone from the American Psychiatric Association to interfaith groups to the friggin' Rand Company has indicated that mandatory sentencing is useless. The same folks that saw conservatives into office will keep these laws on the books, because it's accomplishing their desired goals - keeping drug users from voting. Convicted felons typically can't vote, and the "War on Drugs" will therefore be won by attrition. If you can't vote, you can't disagree with how such things are handled. It's practically self-fulfilling, and an ingenious way to skew the voting population all the while touting your "mandate."

As the video rightly points out, the only reason anyone is even debating this is because it happened to a white guy. If you're not white, heck, this isn't even a blip on the news. It's almost expected, really. I mean, what else do non-white teens do all day but deal drugs and shoot each other, right? A 17-year old white kid gets tagged, though, and we've suddenly got folks using him as the poster child for unfair mandatory sentences? I find that horrible.

The worst part? Race is obviously a factor, but nowhere near as much as socioeconomic status.

If you're rich and white, there is no such thing as a "mandatory sentence" unless you're also a political hot-button issue. If you're rich and not white, well, you can throw enough money to avoid the "mandatory sentence" on-ramp, again, unless you're a political hot-button issue. If you're not rich and white, you're on the road to a mandatory sentence. If you're not rich and not white, you've just hit the express lane. You're looking at a non-rich, white person who got sentenced.

Anyone remember Darryl Best? (I didn't find anything on MetaFilter, and I searched for "Darryl Best".) His crime, for which he received 15 years to life in a maximum security prison, was to sign for a Fed-Ex package delivered to his uncle's house, a package that turned out to contain cocaine. He had no prior criminal record - like this kid, this was his "first offense", despite the fact that he didn't knowingly commit a crime. Thanks to mandatory sentencing guidelines, though, even the judge was appalled at what he was required to do by law.

I'll bet almost no one has even heard of this guy, because he's black. I'm on no high horse here - I didn't know this guy, either, but discovering and reading about this guy's case appalls me far more than the 17-year old kid peddling twenty bucks worth of pot. At least the kid knowingly committed the crime - it just wasn't that big a crime. This guy didn't do a damn thing, as far as he knows, and may end up doing life. Where's his video?

I don't know what else to say, really. I'm genuinely horrified.
posted by FormlessOne at 5:36 PM on August 22, 2006

It's the difference between an educated guess and wild speculation.

Okay, I'll buy that. But, again, so what? That wasn't the point. You're arguing an educated guess is better than wild speculation. And I say that neither an educated guesses nor wild speculation should have been mixed within the factual description of the incident.
posted by CodeBaloo at 5:46 PM on August 22, 2006

its people like this that killed zammo.
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:46 PM on August 22, 2006

FormlessOne -- Great comment. And despite the impression my posts might give, I agree that mandatory sentences are ineffective and should be scrapped. I see myself in the same boat as you show the judge in the Best case -- that the law sucks and isn't fair, but for now, it's the law.
posted by CodeBaloo at 5:52 PM on August 22, 2006

“Same point as to twistedonion: okay, I get you don't think the law or the sentence is fair. So until it is corrected, what to do in the meantime... whoever doesn't like a law should simply be exempted from it?” - posted by CodeBaloo

Coupla points here. I’ll take the embarassing one (for me) first. To wit:

“And as for your creative cut-n-paste attribution --”
- posted by CodeBaloo

It wasn’t creative, nor meant to distort your argument. Quite the contrary it was meant to encapsulate the body of your argument between those two points. I did a really lousy job of expressing that. So - I apologize.

In reference to the first quote - I don’t think you get any part of my argument. It is a mere detail that I think the law and sentence is unfair. Also your dichotomy is pointless. A more appropriate analogy would be to the civil rights act or some other manifestly pointless and arbitrary law. Clearly black folks were constrained by the law whether they agreed with it or not.
I must confess to be similar to many of the not-so militant folks here. I’m rooting for marijuana to be legal. But I don’t feel very strongly about it. My grandfather died of altziemer’s however, so if the results ultimately show that it helps prevent that, I’ll be taking it a lot more personally.
But the substance of the argument over marijuana and this kid in particular is different than one over manditory sentencing laws. In that regard I think the system itself is broken and unfair and that is of major concern and something I do feel strongly about. Because that can be abused - and in fact forms of how the law has been abused to serve certain ends has been referenced in this thread. Re-read my above post. We have a judiciary in place to prevent such abuses by lawmakers so people shouldn’t have to sit and suck on it until it is changed if the law is unjust. (And this has in fact happened many times in the past)

“If I don't agree with the war on litter, I could work for change... but that doesn't exempt me from the current law.” -posted by CodeBaloo

And if it was castration or execution? Again - the judiciary is a check such that if lawmakers go nuts and go for your nuts the judges - and importantly juries - can disregard it.

The law does not always = justice. It is important that we have systemic checks and balances and oversight to make sure that punishment is commensurate with the law being broken. It is of my opinion that in this case that didn’t happen. But I’m just some guy on the internet - so your assertion that “the law is the law” holds. A judge however is qualified to render the law to mete justice. And so the law - if it is unjust or a sentence would be harsh or unjust or not applicable to the situation because every situation is not the same - is not the law, but what the judge says it is. To take that decision out of his hands flouts the foundations this country is based upon.
I would therefore go further than twistedonion and argue in such a case one should take up arms against one’s government and government officials. But that is in response to arbitrary or ad hoc or unjust laws. It does not mean simply because I’m late for work I can speed, but if, for example, a cop busts into my house and he doesn’t have a warrant he is a dead man.
In this situation, it means Lawrence’s parents will probably sue. If they had real money they could fight the system to overturn manditory sentencing in general. Whatever the case - guess who ultimately pays for all that work to fix bad laws passed by asshat politicians in the first place? Again - the taxpayers.

“It didn't sound like something you'd say.” -
posted by Kirth Gerson

I dunno man, I do say some stupid things sometimes. Mostly I’m trying to be wry. Which really comes over well in blog print.
*searches for ‘wry’ key*

“As the video rightly points out, the only reason anyone is even debating this is because it happened to a white guy.”

...wait, the kid’s a white guy? Oh, well, screw him. A white guy can get a suit job with a two year dope bust. A non-white looking or ethnic named guy would be lucky to get a straight on the books job.
*searches for ‘wry, but true’ key*

“Anyone remember Darryl Best?”

Hey...yeah. I remember that pizza stealing guy too. There’s a whole lotta people went to jail on mandatory sentencing b.s. One of my favorite movies is “Midnight Express.” I remember the guy was being sentenced to life in prison for trying to smuggle some hash and the Turkish judge saying his hands were tied because of manditory sentencing laws and how the government wanted to crack down and thinking “wow, those lousy third world repressive regimes.”
*searches for ‘irony’ key*
posted by Smedleyman at 5:54 PM on August 22, 2006

Great. Now that that's out of the way, I'll look for your support of the drunk drivers who think drunk driving laws are daft. And your support of Bush, since he seems to feel laws requiring warrants are oppressive. And and your support of the crack dealers (including those dealing in school zones) who surely feel the penalties are too severe. And your support of Haliburton, since they feel the whole red-tape-government thing is overly oppressive. And on, and on, and on.

And pedos, rapists... yes, I get you but you are being juvenile if you pretend to not understand what I mean.

Those laws have a rationale behind them. They protect others. The laws on drugs (just like laws against race, gender, religion, shopping on a sunday, eating doughnuts on the third wednesday of every other Blue Moon) have no rational basis at all. An individual does not need protecting from themselves (which is what the laws on drugs are about, or so they say).

The guy was not a dealer. It's akin to bumming a cigarette of someone and then offering them a couple of bucks in exchange. He wasn't actively pushing harmful substances on unwilling subjects. I'm as opposed to the abuse of children of any kind.

Giving harmful substances to children is irresponsible and should be punished... but 2 years!!!! Parents cause more harm to their kids by feeding them full of fast food shit than any harm a few spliffs will do. That is a fact. Gonna give the parents 10 year sentences? They are, after all, simply enabling their childs addiction every time they cave in and go to McDonalds. Same with feeding a child full of chocolate. Obesity kills more than people every year than all illegal drugs combines. When are you going to protect your precious youth from the real drugs?
posted by twistedonion at 5:55 PM on August 22, 2006

CodeBaloo, you have no business making any moral judgments of anyone. You know why.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 6:01 PM on August 22, 2006

sorry...

Obesity kills more than people every year than all illegal drugs combines.

That should be "Obesity kills more people every year than all illegal drugs combined.

I'm tired now and not thinking straight, but I guess I'm just trying to understand how people can really think this punishment fits the crime.

To clarify, I don't think people should go to jail for eating burgers or smoking spliffs. I don't support alcoholic motorists or George Bush.

I think people should think for themselves and not tow the line just because they are told to.
posted by twistedonion at 6:02 PM on August 22, 2006

and i think it's time for that bedtime spliff. I'm done thinking now.
posted by twistedonion at 6:06 PM on August 22, 2006

Who most wants drugs to stay illegal? Drug dealers and cops. They get to wake up the next day still on the job. What gets really interesting is when the cops are the drug dealers.
posted by telstar at 6:06 PM on August 22, 2006

twistedonion -- I knew you had to see that coming, but I had to play the hand anyway. So who, exactly, decides which laws the individual is permitted to disregard, and which are valid and must be followed?

The guy was not a dealer. It's akin to bumming a cigarette of someone and then offering them a couple of bucks in exchange. He wasn't actively pushing harmful substances on unwilling subjects.

This is what effwerd and I are going round and round about. How do you know these statements, presented as fact, are indeed factual? I mean, do you know the guy personally? If it's an educated guess, when you boil it down it is still a just guess... a guess dressed up as fact to elicit sympathy.
posted by CodeBaloo at 6:14 PM on August 22, 2006

He's going to spend two years in prison [...] How is that justice? What fucked up world do you live in where this punishment is proportional or in any way excusable? He's 17. He's a dumb kid, and you know what? He's probably not a dealer. He probably just sold some of his own stash when the narc asked for a hookup.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 3:57 PM MST on August 22

And as for the dumb kid, not a dealer, personal stash bit... for all the evidence there is to make those pull-'em-outta-thin-air assumptions, one could just as justifiably say he knew exactly what he was doing, is an experienced drug dealer, and got caught portioning a dime bag out of his 20kg for-sale stash.
posted by CodeBaloo at 4:42 PM MST on August 22

There is more evidence supporting the first set of assumptions. None of the evidence supports your assumption. He's obviously a dumb kid and not an experienced dealer who knows exactly what he's doing. Given the dumb kid aspect, his age, the quantity involved and the location of the transaction, the former set of assumptions have more merit than the latter.

It's very convenient, though, to dismiss any assumption out-of-hand simply for being such. For me, I will admit that I have grown bored of arguing the merits of informed speculation in the absence of additional information while discussing the circumstances of this kid on MetaFilter.
posted by effwerd at 6:14 PM on August 22, 2006

Also perhaps relevant:Yak shaving.
posted by Smedleyman at 6:18 PM on August 22, 2006

Only two years? They gave Timothy Leary ten...but that was for two joints.
posted by 6am at 6:35 PM on August 22, 2006

CodeBaloo: reiterating your cruel, compassionless beliefs over and over will not convince me that you're not an awful human being.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 6:36 PM on August 22, 2006

raedyn: You're right, I concede the point about people who get medicinal value out of it, and I suspect that THC-derived (or just plain old weed) will probably gain a bit of traction. But use as medicine is as far cry from getting the nod to get high just for the hell of it. There are already many medicines which are used medicinally yet restricted for entertainment purposes.

Don't get me wrong, I really wish people would just get over it. But the pessimist in me doesn't see it happening anytime soon.
posted by kfx at 6:40 PM on August 22, 2006

The only relevent consideration:

Was justice served? Was the ruling just?

If you can't answer that sensibly, you might not be fit for humanity.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:46 PM on August 22, 2006

Since back in the day I've said pot should be legal...and all drugs. It seems to me that medicalization of abuse would be more cost effective and humane than criminalization of use.

Once, back in the day, two young soldiers met in the Atlanta, GA, bus depot. Both were in 'civvies' yet they seemed to see each other at an instant. Perhaps it was the duffel bags.

Soldiers they were, she and he, though they would only know one another a few brief moments in time.

Soon, they strolled from the bus station into the dark, cool, southern night. Soon, there was a dark southern gentleman with whom they negotiated a matchbox, a dime in the day.

And some papers, too.

Then they caught a cab into town and took in Vanishing Point on the big screen.

At the airport, so soon after the show, they said goodbye. He boarded one plane, she another.
posted by taosbat at 6:53 PM on August 22, 2006

Ironically, a nice fellow just tried selling me some weed when I was walking to pick up some groceries. First time it's happened to me in my town. I thought about calling the cops when I got home, then I realized they're too busy doing nothing worthwhile and he didn't actually ask me if I wanted to buy some weed, he asked if I smoked weed. Ah, well. Score one for the scumbags, I guess.
posted by keswick at 7:05 PM on August 22, 2006

troll
posted by jaronson at 7:20 PM on August 22, 2006

If you are referring to my post, I assure you everything actually occurred as described and I sincerely hold all opinions expressed in that post.
posted by keswick at 7:22 PM on August 22, 2006

The only relevent consideration: Was justice served? Was the ruling just?

No, the only relevant consideration is that I am NEVER going to prison for a drug offense, so I don't care what the punishment is. That's justice, hippy.
posted by homunculus at 7:41 PM on August 22, 2006

Scumbags sell weed.

Goodguys give it away. Seeds, cuttings, clones, trim, cured bud, whatever. It's not like the stuff is an endangered species.

Girl Scout cookies, on the other hand, are only available during select times of the year, and then only through a young, female mafia. Not only is their cookie-based drug addictive, their parents will exert endless peer pressure for you to purchase the cookies. You pretty much gotta cough up when the boss looks you in the eye.

Free the weed! Ban the Girl Scouts!
posted by five fresh fish at 7:43 PM on August 22, 2006 [1 favorite]

Democracy wasn't called "tyranny of the majority" for no reason. Also note that the USA is not a democracy, but rather a democratic republic, and it makes a difference.

excellent point, knave.
posted by brandz at 8:05 PM on August 22, 2006

CodeBaloo, PastaBagel, etc.: you are a disgusting sack of shit. So anyone who even slightly violates any law, no matter how insane or injust, is completely deserving of whatever punishment, no matter how cruel and sadistic, that happens to be prescribed. If it were illegal to criticize the government, say for security reasons that 51% of the populace are concerned enough about - would you nod approvingly as your child was tortured to death for quietly muttering a complaint about the present ban on candy (which you, smart enough to eat healthy, wouldn't touch?) I hope you get a speeding ticket racing to the hospital with chest pains. Oh, you don't have a cell?
posted by Astragalus at 8:07 PM on August 22, 2006

...reiterating your cruel, compassionless beliefs over and over will not convince me that you're not an awful human being.

YOUR IRONY IS KILLING METAFILTER.
posted by cribcage at 8:10 PM on August 22, 2006

So anyone attend hempfest this weekend?

Cops where telling people "dont smoke that around here" and all those pot brownies and pot lolipops.

Love it.
posted by IronWolve at 8:32 PM on August 22, 2006

Ironically, a nice fellow just tried selling me some weed when I was walking to pick up some groceries. First time it's happened to me in my town. I thought about calling the cops when I got home, then I realized they're too busy doing nothing worthwhile and he didn't actually ask me if I wanted to buy some weed, he asked if I smoked weed. Ah, well. Score one for the scumbags, I guess.
posted by keswick at 9:05 PM CST on August 22 [+] [!] [↑]

troll narc.

He asked if you smoked weed, and then left you alone. HOW DARE HE!
posted by Leather McWhip at 8:34 PM on August 22, 2006

If I wanted to live where drug pushers freely ply their wares on public streets, I'd live in San Francisco.
posted by keswick at 8:48 PM on August 22, 2006

troll narc troll.
posted by homunculus at 9:02 PM on August 22, 2006

*eyeroll* Yeah, that's me.
posted by keswick at 9:09 PM on August 22, 2006

San Francisco Vancouver.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:25 PM on August 22, 2006

Never been to Haight and Ashbury, I take it?
posted by keswick at 9:37 PM on August 22, 2006

FormlessOne - This guy didn't do a damn thing, as far as he knows, and may end up doing life.

Pataki granted him clemency last December. Of course, there was no admission of wrongdoing on their part: "While I remain firmly committed to continuing our successful efforts to fight crime, this individual has dedicated himself to becoming a contributing member of society and has earned an opportunity for a second chance.". A "second chance"!
posted by daksya at 10:00 PM on August 22, 2006

Well, at least he wasn't sent off to Iraq to get shot up. God bless the USA!
posted by delmoi at 11:05 PM on August 22, 2006

I blame Metafilter.
posted by Balisong at 11:09 PM on August 22, 2006

Add James Beathard to the Darryl Best file. He went out to a house with his friend on a "drug deal," stayed outside, and the "friend" murdered his own family and then testified that Beathard had done it himself. Though the friend later recanted his testimony, the D.A. used Beathard's drug connections to retain the conviction, and he was exectued in 1999.

Then-Governor Bush refused to allow an appeal.
posted by Navelgazer at 12:27 AM on August 23, 2006

In England, smoking dope is basically unbroblematic. Selling it is illegal but it also depends on the quantity. Still, it being illegal means that you have to have a dealer, who may also sell coke, x, smack etc (and who may at some point say "I'm out of weed, but I got some nice coke for you. Don't you want to try it?").

In Holland, you buy your stuff from designated shops and nobody bothers you.

In Switzerland you buy weed in specialised shops, in nice plastic bags printed with all relevant information (kilo price, type of hemp, height of area where it was grown, plus producer info).

In Scandinavia they worry mostly about other drugs, not weed.

In India charas (hasish) is used in religious ceremonies and by Shiva followers.

In Morocco "a puff of kif a day makes a man as strong as a hundred camels in the courtyard".

Now, as far as laws are concerned: free societies become free by opposing unjust laws. The idea that every law lawmakers come up with must be upheld and followed is ridiculous, if not outright fascist.

And, please, do not equate weed with: alcohol, other drugs, bad food, sexual predilections, sigarettes, or anything else.

My opinion, bottomline: this kid deserves a spanking for being stupid and that's all.

CodeBaloo and Pastabagel: you are badly in need for a reset.
posted by acrobat at 3:54 AM on August 23, 2006

I love how because I disagree with the prevailing view around here, I'm "a sack of shit", "in need for a reset", etc.

Pastabagel and CodeBaloo think it's completely reasonable to destroy a boy's life for selling $20 worth of pot.

Delete the phrase "$20 worth of", and acknoweldge the fact that the kid did it to himself, and acknowledge that 2 years for a 17 year old isn't really destroying his life, and yes, that's about right.

It's fine to argue against mandatory sentencing guidelines, but again, if you attack the concept, then all the guidelines come out. Which means outcomes you don't like in the reverse - heinous crimes that get trivial punishment.

CodeBaloo, PastaBagel, etc.: you are a disgusting sack of shit. So anyone who even slightly violates any law, no matter how insane or injust, is completely deserving of whatever punishment, no matter how cruel and sadistic, that happens to be prescribed

Yeah, because that's exactly what I said. Do you really really think two years is cruel and sadistic? Don't you really just mean harsh? It is a little harsh. Tough. DONT SELL DRUGS. It's not like the official policy with respect to drugs is a secret. As some point, an instinct for self-preservation has to kick in. I look at it as an extension of the Darwin Awards. People stupid enough to sell drugs near a school to adults they don't know in a society that has made drug enforcement a top priority are too stupid for their own good.

And for the umpteenth time, drug use is not like being gay or black or any of the other dozen things people around here want to equate it with. It is fascinating that so many people consider drug use to be an identity-defining characteristic on par with race or sexual orientation. It's a product you use because you enjoy it, don't elevate it to the status of a revolutionary act.

Which brings me to another current running through this discussion - the idea of civil disobedience. Should we obey every law because it's the law, etc.

No, you should not obey unjust laws. But you should fully expect to be punished for your acts of civil disobedience. That's why the civil rights marches in the South were examples of courage. They knew they were going to go to jail, get attacked by cops, etc, but they did it anyway. It's the punishment for a non-violent protest of the law that draws attention to the injustice of the law.

But a lot of you here are arguing that civil disobedience is some kid of affirmative defense. In other words, some think that if you break the law in protest, you shouldn't be punished for it as if you broke the law out of self-interest. That's completely wrong.

But regardless, that isn't the situation here. If you want to highlight the absurdity and injustice of the drug laws, walk into a police station with a single marijuana seedling in a little plastic pot, personally prepared to suffer whatever consequences may come.

But in this case, you have a stupid kid who was busted selling pot. Not busted for possessing it, or holding it, or smoking it, but for selling it.

Now for ther retort to the "disgusting sack of shit" statement. I'm not the one being inconsistent or unfair. Drug use is no better or worse than a million other things that are illegal. I reiterate my insider trading example. If I have information about a company that was a result of my own work and effort, why shouldn't I be able to profit off of that. There is no victim, because the amount I would trade would be inconsequential. Why is that illegal? Why do so many of you think it's immoral?

But drugs are somehow special, presumably because for a lot of people it involves a whole lifestyle and that is accompanied by the illusion of rebellion. I've got news for you doing drugs is not an act of defiance, it's an act of indulgence. At the height of the counterculture and unabashed drug use, whe so many people believed they were being rebellious, the country elected Richard fucking Nixon. Drug use isn't a moral choice, or a fight for rights or justice. It's a consumption choice.
posted by Pastabagel at 7:58 AM on August 23, 2006

Delete the phrase "$20 worth of", and acknoweldge the fact that the kid did it to himself, and acknowledge that 2 years for a 17 year old isn't really destroying his life, and yes, that's about right.

Become a myopic asshole like me.

Yeah, Pastabagel. You're a fucking winner.
posted by prostyle at 8:06 AM on August 23, 2006

Never been to Haight and Ashbury, I take it?

Stood right there, took the picture.

Never been on Hastings street, near Commercial Drive, I take it? Only place I've ever been offered my choice of powder or rocks.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:11 AM on August 23, 2006

People stupid enough to sell drugs near a school to adults they don't know in a society that has made drug enforcement a top priority are too stupid for their own good.

You folks gotta give Pastabagel that point, at least. The outcome has been all out of proportion to the offense, but sheezus, you gotta be some special kind of stupid to have pulled that stunt.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:14 AM on August 23, 2006 [1 favorite]

Delete the phrase "$20 worth of", and acknoweldge the fact that the kid did it to himself, and acknowledge that 2 years for a 17 year old isn't really destroying his life, and yes, that's about right

sorry to say this, sport, but you're waaaaaay off. possibly even wilfully ignorant.

ever been to a prison for a visit? know anyone who was just a regular joe who did time (i.e., not someone powerful and well-connected inside and outside)? i have. we treat animals in the zoo with more regard for their dignity than we do human beings in prison in this country.

this kid may not be bright-eyed and innocent going in, but unless he's one of the lucky 1 in a million, he's going to be scarred, bitter, and angry when he gets out. know what the inmates are going to be thinking when they see him? "fresh meat!" it's going to be 2 calendar years (possibly less), but it'll seem a lot, lot longer than that to him.

i pray that you and those you care about never end up in the american legal/penal system. it runs people over and doesn't even glance back at them afterward.
posted by lord_wolf at 8:28 AM on August 23, 2006

so don't break the law?
posted by keswick at 8:29 AM on August 23, 2006

Pastabagel - I've got news for you doing drugs is not an act of defiance, it's an act of indulgence.

a)One of the big predictors of drug use among youth is opposition.
2)The same can be said of sex i.e. a consumption choice. One does not have to have sex. It's a consumption choice for pleasure and procreation.

If you want to highlight the absurdity and injustice of the drug laws, walk into a police station with a single marijuana seedling in a little plastic pot, personally prepared to suffer whatever consequences may come.

That's just being stupid. It won't do much good unless you're a celebrity beforehand. The whole idea is to effect change. It's already been tried by a retired Penn State professor and I doubt if many people remember him now. Roughly 40% support pot legalization - this general opposition is well-known, so a few dozen people getting arrested won't make much, if any, difference.
posted by daksya at 8:38 AM on August 23, 2006

so don't break the law?

Laws being broken in an unavoidable consequence of having fascist laws. And yes, drug laws are fascist- the implicit claim of drug laws is that the individual doesn't own their body.

So don't make stupid laws?
posted by spaltavian at 8:57 AM on August 23, 2006

so don't break the law?

all i'm saying is that if someone breaks a law that doesn't victimize someone else, don't rejoice in his or her punishment or dismiss it as something trivial. despite what hip hop artists and "urban" culture try to tell us, prison is an absolutely horrible place -- especially for people who aren't "hard" going into it.
posted by lord_wolf at 9:10 AM on August 23, 2006

A minority of people realized that some laws were bullshit and needed to be changed, and they didn't pipe down posted furiously on the Internet until the changes wentt into effect.

Fixed.

I love how because I disagree with the prevailing view around here, I'm "a sack of shit", "in need for a reset", etc.

Yeah, well...welcome to MetaFilter. The fact that you don't believe this two-year sentence ("It's going to ruin his life, dude!!") is unjust makes you an evil person who deserves cancer. That's about the height of debate around here. No appreciation for irony.
posted by cribcage at 9:12 AM on August 23, 2006

Yeah, two years in prison is like fucking Disneyland.
posted by spaltavian at 9:14 AM on August 23, 2006

The fact that you don't believe this two-year sentence is unjust makes you an evil person who deserves cancer.

Well, yeah, pretty much. Maybe you'd be more comfortable somewhere like Singapore, where the expectations of proportionality in punishment are rather different.
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:22 AM on August 23, 2006

Yeah, because anything that isn't exactly like visiting Disneyland ruins your entire life.
posted by cribcage at 9:24 AM on August 23, 2006

Yeah, because anything that isn't exactly like visiting Disneyland ruins your entire life.

He won't be able to vote.

He won't be able to get a job.

He'll probably come out a criminal, which is far different from what he's going in there as.
posted by kableh at 9:57 AM on August 23, 2006

I didn't create the false dilemma, you did. Even if this doesn't ruin his life, two years in prison is an awful, awful thing and totally out of proportion for the 'crime' he was convicted of.

Your mocking of people outraged by absurd punishment suggest that it wasn't a big deal. Yeah, there is plenty of space between Disneyland and ruined-life. This is just a lot closer to the latter than the former.

But, yeah, people are totally overreacting they decry when politically-motivated mandatory minimums having nothing to do with justice are blithely used to put a 17 year old kid into jail for a harmless act because, hey 'the law is the law'.
posted by spaltavian at 9:58 AM on August 23, 2006

I didn't create the false dilemma...

Uhh...

Your mocking of people outraged by absurd punishment...

<Sigh.> The problem has less to do with the fact that people are outraged than the fact that people wish "chest pains" upon anyone who isn't outraged. It's not your belief about Mitchell Lawrence; it's how you discourse with anyone who doesn't share your belief about Mitchell Lawrence.

No, a two-year prison term isn't Disneyland. Yes, it will adversely affect his life. Both statements are true for every criminal, which puts the onus on you to distinguish Mitchell Lawrence. That brings us back to the argument that Pastabagel has been making throughout this thread — and so far, no one has offered much rebuttal except to call him a sack of shit.
posted by cribcage at 12:23 PM on August 23, 2006

Pastabagel wrote:
But this kid going to prison? I see nothing wrong with that.

I wish we had two tax bases. One for people who think this is stupid and refuse to pay for it. Another for people who want to pay $50k/year to lock up a kid for selling a dime bag.

You see nothing wrong with it? Were your eyes gouged out in a tragic accident or do you just choose to keep them closed?

This guy is taking up space in a jail, that could be used for a murderer or a rapist. Jails that are almost universally crowded. So crowded that murderers and rapists routinely serve short sentences, because they simply don't have a room.

He's doing so because he sold the herbal equivalent of a single beer.

If you can't see any flaw with this, you are, by far, the dumbest person on the Internet.
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 1:42 PM on August 23, 2006

That brings us back to the argument that Pastabagel has been making throughout this thread

What argument is that? That he knew he was breaking the law THEREFORE he deserves whatever he gets?
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:46 PM on August 23, 2006

so far, no one has offered much rebuttal except to call him a sack of shit.

That's because that's what he is.

Anybody who thinks it's a great idea to totally decimate a 17yo's entire life because of a dime bag is completely and unspeakably broken.

It's unspeakably inhumane. He deserves any ill thoughts sent his way, for the fact that he supports the wholesale decimation of a person's life because of a typical teenage bit of lawbreaking.

I just hope that his own children get the punishment he's urging some day. For that is the only way he will realize that he is a heartless sack of shit.
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 1:48 PM on August 23, 2006

Oh, and I break a lot of laws on a regular basis. Notably, I speed sometimes, and I break parking laws routinely.

I expect to get punished occasionally, in accordance to the severity of my crime.

I would be fucking SHOCKED if they sent me to jail for two years for going 9mph over.

I can't help but think that's what happened to this kid. He expected that the law would be enforced reasonably and consistently (notably, his worst case scenario would be a slap on the wrist.)

Instead they chose to ruin his life with a felony conviction that essentially destroys him. Only a monster could support this.
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 1:50 PM on August 23, 2006

“Which means outcomes you don't like in the reverse - heinous crimes that get trivial punishment.”

I think you’re still missing the “you” part of the equation. “You” have nothing to do with it. The judge interprets the law and administers justice (sometimes with a jury). “You” vote people into and out of office. Sometimes those people are judges. That’s how the system works. Involving the legislative branch of government in judicial sentencing not only overrides the system, but attempts to ideologically dictate what is otherwise a dynamic social order. I joke that it’s big government liberals who support this kind of thing, but in fact the so-called conservatives who want to look tough on crime very much fit that “big government liberal” label. This essentially mandates taking money out of my pocket and putting it into the prison system.
That aside - while I disagree with acrobat’s characterization of the issue I agree with the underlying premise that society is based on equity in treatment. In this case government officials have ordered that offenders guilty of a certain classification of offense should be disproportionately punished regardless of any judicial considerations. That is in no way just, and is, as I’ve said, an attempt to force lawmakers ideology on society by circumventing the will of the courts.
The argument about henious crimes getting light punishment is not of the same order. One argument is about ideologues, equity and support of the system. Your assertion speaks to corruption and power brokering.
And we can certainly second guess the judiciary within the system, there are appeals courts and other legal avenues available which makes manditory sentencing even more pointless.

“It's a consumption choice.” - posted by Pastabagel

Which has been incorrectly legislated based on an arbitrary ideology. Why is alcohol legal? Why was it illegal? Why did it become legal again? We are suffering social problems as the result of bad legislation. In this way drug use is equivalent to ethnic, sexual, and religious rights. Granted in content they’re very differnt things. But race laws - devoid of content - are equal to certain drug use laws in terms of social ills and government efficiency. Marginalizing a large chunk of society based on skin color and imaginary arbitrary concepts like “race” was an inefficient use of government resources. Sending a 17 year old boy to jail for two years for one joint is an inefficient use of government resources.
Assertions that the law is the law are all well and good and in most cases I support those assertions. This case - and many others mentioned here - are feedback that is indicative that the law in this case is not working well. Furthermore - the nature of this law (manditory sentencing) is not aligned with the traditional nature of checks and balances in our system.
The law is the law, but the system is the system. There is little dispute that what this kid did was illegal (whether it should or shouldn’t be is subject to debate) and should be prosecuted.
However arrest and prosecution are a selective process, as is - or rather usually is - conviction and punishment. The system allows for the human selectivity within the process.
Manditory sentencing laws override that human element and thereby (in this case and others) force disparity into the system because it can’t react or compensate to individual or local conditions.
There are many laws on the books (discussed on mefi at length) including sodomy. These are not enforced typically. However your assertion is that the law is the law, policy is well known, etc. So therefore if my wife and I have oral sex in our home we should know that we are open to prosecution. In the same way, the kid probably did not think he would be open to the full weight of the system for selling one joint. He most likely did not have a reasonable expectation of being treated like a violent or hardened criminal much like I would not were I to have the kind of sex with my wife that certain ideologues find immoral and prosecutable. The law in this case however, mandates that.

Police officers and judges don’t have to arrest, prosecute, convict, and punish. The legislation and policies in this case however make that manditory dispite any mitigating factors and dispite the fact that Lawrence is not (apparently) the hardened criminal type the law is in theory directed to eliminate.
The judge - who likely has seen hardened criminals and poor fools in various measures - could probably tell the difference. Even if the judge couldn’t, the rap sheet is usually a dead giveaway.
The law in this case eliminates the human element of judgement.
That in itself makes it an unjust law.
I would rather have ten guilty men go free than to eliminate the possibility of explaining or justifying oneself to a human being with the power to render judgement. Justice rendered by some legislator writing a document in some room a thousand miles away ten years ago is not justice.

...don’t really know how that can be made more clear.

Of course I agree with your point we should all try to maintain some decorum and be polite to each other. Attack ideas not individuals. Guilty of that myself more than a few times, so there’s no pretense of me being some paragon of virtue. But we can all try.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:42 PM on August 23, 2006

I wish we had two tax bases. One for people who think this is stupid and refuse to pay for it. Another for people who want to pay $50k/year to lock up a kid for selling a dime bag.

i love you.
posted by poweredbybeard at 2:56 PM on August 23, 2006

It's unspeakably inhumane. He deserves any ill thoughts sent his way...he is a heartless sack of shit.

OK. Just for giggles, let's pretend that I've swallowed your "wholesale decimation" hyperbole, and that I agree this two-year prison sentence is so grave an injustice that, simply because he expressed his indifferent opinion on the Internet, Pastabagel is a terrible person who deserves a swift death.

What does that make you?

Think about it. If it's really such a grave injustice, what are you doing about it? Have you telephoned your congressman to ask him to look into Lawrence's case? Have you written a letter to the presiding judge? Have you stood outside the prison picketing? Have you mailed a check to Judith Knight's campaign? Other than posting angry messages on the Internet, what have you done to correct the injustice delivered unto Mitchell Lawrence?

Because if you've done nothing — and if you believe Pastabagel's children should be imprisoned because he's indifferent toward Lawrence — then surely that means that you're a heartless bastard too, or at least a coward. If it's really that much of an injustice, then don't you have a duty to stand up and act? And if you haven't, what does that make you?
posted by cribcage at 7:15 PM on August 23, 2006

But drunks aren't responsible for their behaviour! It affected their judgement, so they can't possibly be held at fault!

The kid shoulda claimed to have been higher than fuck when he sold the dope. Or better yet, drunk.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:24 AM on August 24, 2006

No conversation could be more pointlessly theoretical.

I would disagree extremely strongly. Take a look at California. This likewise applies to the nation.
posted by mrgrimm at 12:07 PM on September 19, 2006