Our Legal System Sucks (Ideas)

[PyRo]

I already have my opinions on traffic tickets in another thread, go look it up and whine about the current system with me

[sneakyhacker420]

no, our government is fine man, the world is what sucks, and the people who are afraid to open their eyes and see reality

basically the world thrives on ignorance, but in the end, you'll realize that they're slowly killing theirselves off in one way or another


its not every day that you'll hear a 15 year old thinking like this, but its the truth, ignorance is why the world the way it is today, and why its been like it has since the very beginning of human life


wether you realize it or not, ignorance influences every aspect of life, and it will be like this until the end of time

[PyRo]

I know people are ignorant, thats why Ford is still around. But what does what you just said have to do with the legal system? Please elaborate

[sneakyhacker420]

basically, the government is universally ignorant

as you stated the death penalty and whatnot, we make a big fuss over frying a serial killer, but then we never do anything to the millions of people who die from smoking and the like - as stated in another thread, it costs billions of dollars each year, taken from the tax revenue that the government receives, to maintain prisons, and keep the inmates alive, who are in there for life anyways

i don't see why any person would want to spend their life in jail, but apparently our gov't has reasons to keep them in there, alive and thriving in the violent prison environment, rather then executing the worst criminals, who have been designated to die X number of years before hand... yet they're still in their cells, waiting, and waiting, for a day that will never come to them, except for a select few that the public has decided were truly bad enough that they deserve to die


basically, i could go on with this for what would seem years, using infinite examples from our surrounding world

it gets too complicated for me to even convey to many people

i'm not a good teacher, but if someone were ever to get inside my head, they would be simply astonished by what i've realized, even at the age of 15


if you'd want me to go in depth and criticise the loss of life and whatnot in even more elaborate detail, it would start to piss people off, because many of them don't feel that its the truth, but it is, and too many people just cant handle it

[PyRo]

What should we do about the millions who die from smoking? Smoking will never be made illigle we take in way to much tax revenue for that to happen. They would also come after alcohol next, and who knows anything about prohibition, that didn't sit too well.
You know what would be a nice program? Offer to help people quit smoking for free. If you don't take advantage of this program and you develop lung cancer (as a result of smoking), the government shouldn't help you pay for it. You knew it was destructive, you choose to do it, we offered you help, now pay the bills yourself.
I won't be demanding that someone pay my medical bills when I kill my liver from drinking

My whole death penelty you will see above. But with the way the system is now it actually costs alot more to execute someone then to keep them in jail for life.

[sneakyhacker420]

i'm stopping here, can't type anymore, and i just can't keep on going with this subject

[Restola]

Originally posted by PyRo
When it is no longer illegal you will see the amount of people using drugs increase, as well as the amount used increase (as prices will drop).

Have evidence for this? (I know you don't, none exists, there are no parallels).

There is, however, some evidence that will NOT happen.

Interesting read if you have time (its long)

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa121.html

Also, are the drug laws the only thing preventing you from making all these bad choices and losing your job and ending up on welfare?

Anyways this all goes back to the same idea. Freeing up the courts from these types of cases will give us the resources we need to punish criminals that need punishing.

[Curly]

Originally posted by Restola

Stop letting them out.

Sure, if you want to pay the billions upon billions of dollars a year to keep up prisoners. If only that money could go to our public education system....

[PyRo]

Ok "facts" can be made to show whatever you want. Why not go to the clans webpage and read up on why whites are superior, i'm sure they have some "facts" backing up that claim.
Let me ask you, if you went around asking people if they thought crack should be legalized what do you think the majority would say?
This would most definatly cause more problems then it solves. Anyone who says drug use will go down if its legalized, well they're full of it.

[Restola]

Originally posted by PyRo
So what your saying is noone doesn't do or sell drugs just because its illigle?

You made a statement that can't be backed up.

Do some research.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa121.html

It is a mistake to assume that the mere availability of a drug leads to drug use or abuse:

"For most of human history, even under conditions of ready access to the most potent of drugs, people and societies have regulated their drug use without requiring massive education, legal, and interdiction campaigns.[81]"

Before drug prohibition, in both America and England, narcotics use peaked and then declined long before national prohibition was adopted.[82] Today, in spite of the availability of alcohol, problem drinkers are considered to compose only about 10 percent of the population.[83] In spite of the fact that marijuana can be purchased on virtually any street corner in some cities, only about 10 percent of the population has done so in the last month, according to NIDA. Significantly, the figures for cocaine are quite similar, in spite of the drug's reputation for addictiveness. About 20 million have tried the drug, but only 25 percent of that number have used it in the last month and only about 10 percent are considered addicts.[84] It bears remembering that for cocaine, the sample population is drawn from that segment of the population already interested enough in drugs to break the law to obtain them. Thus, an even lower percentage of repeat users could be expected from the overall population under legalization. These numbers support Stanton Peele's belief that "cocaine use is now described [incorrectly] as presenting the same kind of lurid monomania that pharmacologists once claimed only heroin could produce."[85]

The fatal flaw in the policy of prohibition is that those who need to be protected most from drug use--hard-core users--are at the same time those least likely to be deterred by laws against drugs. For these individuals, drug use is one of the highest values in life. They will take great risks, pay high prices, and violate the law in pursuit of that value.

Further, it is naive to think that prohibition relieves prospective or even moderate drug users of the need to make responsible decisions with respect to illegal drugs. It is just too easy and inexpensive to obtain a few batches of crack or heroin to claim that prohibition obviates individual choice. Individual preference--not law enforcement--is the likely explanation for the existence of 20 million marijuana smokers but only 500,000 heroin users. If 20 million people demanded heroin, the black market would meet that demand, perhaps with synthetic substitutes, just as it met the enormous demand for alcohol in the 1920s. Prohibition is at best a comforting illusion.

Perhaps the most telling indicator of the ineffectiveness of U.S. drug laws is their failure to reduce the overall use of illegal drugs. On a per capita basis, the use of narcotics was no more prevalent before prohibition than it is today, and the use of cocaine is more widespread today than when it was legally available. In 1915, the year the first national control laws became effective, there were about 200,000 regular narcotics users and only 20,000 regular cocaine users.[86] Today,there are about 500,000 regular heroin users and two million regular cocaine users.[87] (Opium and morphine, also narcotics,have essentially been driven out of circulation by the more profitable heroin. Prohibition has not reduced narcotics use, but it has made narcotics more powerful.) Thus, with a population more than twice what it was in 1915, the percentage of the population using narcotics has remained about the same, while cocaine use has increased by more than 4,000 percent. Seventy years of intensive law enforcement efforts have failed to measurably reduce drug use.

The failure of drug control should not be surprising. During Prohibition, alcohol consumers merely switched from beer and wine to hard liquor often of dubious quality, resulting in a drastic increase in deaths from alcohol poisoning.[88] Whether Prohibition actually reduced total consumption is disputed,[89] but it is known that the repeal of Prohibition did not lead to an explosive increase in drinking.[90] More recently, in those states that have decriminalized marijuana, no substantial increase in use has occurred.[91] When the Netherlands decriminalized marijuana in 1978, use actually declined.[92]

[Restola]

Originally posted by Curly
If only that money could go to our public education system....

I'd like to see any evidence that says MONEY is the reason our public schools are awful.

But that is a totally different issue.

[Curly]

Well, my local school district is millions of dollars in debt and is having to fire teachers by the boat load. This causes class sizes to climb. With larger classes, students get less individual attention and often do not learn as well. Please show me some evidence that states that students do not learn better in classes with less than 40 students...

Do not tell me it is the districts fault for being in debt. They just dont get enough funding to keep running in the black.

It is for this reason, among others, that I switched to private school. I was fortunate enough to be able to afford it, many are not so fortunate.

[Restola]

Originally posted by Curly
This causes class sizes to climb. With larger classes, students get less individual attention and often do not learn as well.

Theres actually little evidence to back that up. The only studies I've seen have been from bad areas, where there are issues other than class size playing a role (like gang-warfare funded by the artificial inflation of drug prices).

Originally posted by Curly
I was fortunate enough to be able to afford it, many are not so fortunate.

Make all schools private.

[PyRo]

Illigality drives up the price in turn decreasing demand. I'm going to pay more for a cheap switchblade then a decent legal knife.
I can back up my statement, if selling drugs was legal I would do it.

Prohibition is a differant beast, its someone we had then it was taken away. Drugs were never legal in the U.S. atleast as far back as most people can remember.

[Restola]

Please spend some time and read the article I posted. I will gladly read anything you send me to if you will just read that article (the author is also a much better writer than I am).

I'm not going to post any more on the merits of drug legalization unless you want to read that. I don't have time to essentially paraphrase someone who has done all the research. (but like I said, if you want to send me some info from someone who has different evidence, I will gladly read it).