Not to defend J. Russell, but....

[jason]

(...advance ps - thanks for making this a fun and intelligent discussion!)

Agreed.

 

I completely agree that we shouldn't be surprised that law enforcement is going after this. However, what concerns me, besides the overall element of letting people do what they want in the privacy of their own homes, is that this could very well be an inroad to racist profiling by law enforcement. Many of our drug laws were set up with that premise in mind. Cannibis' name was changed to marijuana in order to reflect negatively on people of Latin decent. Many have argued that the tough laws on crack were set in place to incarcerate more minorites in urban cities. I'm not saying that this is indeed the case with this new cough medicine trend. But, I am weary.

 

That is a VERY big stretch in my opinion. I don't think the drug laws were set up with racial intentions. They were set up with drug intentions, but it just happens to have affected some communities more than others. How can this be remedied? DON'T DO DRUGS. It really is that simple. One can't blame a police officer for arresting all of one kind of person when nearly each arrest is on a person committing crime. The focus should be on stopping crime, not stopping specific people committing crime. Hence, crimes being committed are being stopped.

 

Side note: The argument is especially ridiculous when considering that Jamarcus Russell is a millionaire.

 

I do agree that making such activity, at minimum, de-criminalized, is nice in theory and will have serious issues to see it in place. However, it still should be attempted. Will we see a rise in usage? Probably. But, I would imagine, like in the Netherlands, you get a spike and then a deflation over time. People with drug problems aren't criminals, they are (for lack of a better term) weak. They need help, not incarcertaion. This is why we live in incarceration nation. Someone gets nabbed for drug use, goes to jail, gets hardened, goes out and commits serious crimes or similar, then returns to jail. It's a vicious cycle.

 

I think you've contradicted yourself a bit. You admit that the people are weak, and abuse drugs because they are weak, but then claim that all they need is help. What's to stop them from abusing again after their help? The question is rhetorical because the answer is nothing. What we need is MUCH harsher penalties for things that are illegal, not coddling. The reason people continue to commit crime at alarming rates is that the penalties are not convincing or persuasive enough (i.e. chain gangs, hard labor, executions). FEAR of going to prison should be instilled in the population, not general apathy. Perhaps if people were actually afraid of prison, afraid of their punishments, then less crime would be committed. Of course, I'm not a big believer in rehabilitation. I believe in the fear of possible punishment over rehabilitation.

 

Side note: I was in the Netherlands last month, and felt more unsafe in several skinny alleys than I do/did in Detroit, Memphis, and/or Chicago. Having said that, the comparison is false because A] Netherlands is a country that doesn't face nearly the type of turmoil we face on any level, and B] The saturation of drug use does not spread country-wide, but instead focuses almost primarily in Amsterdam.

 

The smoking issue is an interesting one. Here in California, it was first tackled. I'm a bit torn. I'm fully opposed to smoking in public places, however, I'm torn in private. At home, it should obviously be allowed. But if I own a bar, and I want my patrons to be able to smoke, shouldn't that be my right? If someone doesn't want to work there or consume there, they have options to go elsewhere. I will say, as a non-smoker, besides the occassion victory cigar, I love dining with no smoke! But, there's something oddly missing when I go to a bar. I'm drinking, so right off the bat, I'm not in there for my health! Also, when I see a blues show (yes, the rare one in LA), something seems deathly wrong with not being in a smoke filled room! I'm just old and dumb on that one!

 

In principle, yet again, I agree. However, the public to a certain extent needs to be protected from itself. If something is illegal, then NO, as a private property owner you should not have the PRIVILEGE to allow smoking (because smoking is not a "right"). If you were allowed, then a very slippery slope is created where you as a bar owner get to determine various other things contradictory to laws that are in place. If a law is put in place to protect many from the destructive habits of others, then I'll probably be for it. It's the same reason people can drink, they can drive, but they can't drink and drive. Their bad habits negatively affect others.

 

Side Note: Family has been hit by the cancer bug twice, and smoking/smokers really piss me off. I think smoking itself should be illegal because it's causing more deaths per year than anything else (i.e. heart diseases, cancer, respiratory diseases), which is aside from the fact that smokers think the world is their ashtray.

 

I agree about Russell. The guy is an idiot. I remember the farily recent skit from SNL Weekend Update where the reporters lambasted Michael Vick about his pot charge in the Miami airport (I think the segment was called "Really?"). How do these mega-millionaires not have a better cover? Here in LA, for years, it was known that rappers, Cypress Hill, would hire "roadies" basically to hold and transport all their weed, so in case they ever got nabbed, it'd only be for a tiny amount that they were just smoking. With the medical law in place, now they are free to be fried. In some way shape or form, how do some of these athletes not get a similar "roadie" to hold their crap or get a limo to drive them when they're drunk? It is ridiculous. You are right about if it is illegal it is illegal. Anyone caught doing it should expect reprecussions.

 

Agreed (except on whether or not marijuana should be legal for any reason).

[defiantgiant]

My two cents: the stuff Russell got caught with is dangerous, and while I'm not at all pro-War-on-Drugs, this isn't one of those drugs people should be allowed to do recreationally. Lean is codeine-promethazine cough syrup (not sure if there's dextromethorphan in there too,) and to get high on it, you're basically overdosing on promethazine, which can cause difficulty breathing, seizures, and heart failure. Two of the biggest lean proponents in the hip-hop community, DJ Screw and Pimp C, both died of cardiac arrest from drinking the stuff. I'm pro-decriminalization generally, but there's a good reason why you can't have this stuff without a prescription.

[madlithuanian]

I agree. It is a stretch, especially in this day and age. However, even just reading this wikipedia article...(and we know it's 100%, but I gurantee you can find more info out there)...you can see that racial elements do intertwine with the US's drug policy.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_(drugs)

 

I'm sorry if I wan't clearer on my take of "weakness" regarding drug users. There is honestly nothing than can or, in my opinion, should stop someone from taking drugs. Only that person's will power can or should stop that person. That will power can be helped along by friends, family, church, rehabilitation, etc. But only that person can make it happen or not. I basically refuse to be judge, jury and executioner...and nor do I want my govt to be that. If the person is weak and can't stop, at least give him or her safe haven to purchase clean needles, etc and untainted drugs. But, the moment that person drives, etc while on drugs, that's when I believe a crime is actually committed. I just disagee that harsher penalties stop crime. People still murder in states that have the death penalty. Penalty can be a deterrent, and is for the most part. But, you cannot truly stop anything via that alone. Prison scares the living hell out of me. I've seen Oz! But, that's me...

 

Dang! I was in the Netherlands about 20 years ago and didn't feel that. I guess things have changed! Yes, it is a different land with a different history, etc. Maybe not a perfect comparison. But, they seem to have the correct philosophy on it. Unless it's turned into Detroit Rock City over the last 20 years! But, I also think Canada has similar laws or decriminalization.

 

I basically disagree that the public needs to be protected from itself. Right or wrong, people need to make decisions for themselves. If ill is caused to someone else due to those bad decisions, then, and only then, should punishment be administered. At least, that's my view. I'm not sure your particular example of smoking in bars is applicable. I'm running on the notion that smoking is legal, therefore, smoking in a private establishment, in theory, should be legal. In a public place, like Federal, state, local govt buildings areas, no.

 

I agree, bad habits can be infectious. But, just because they are, does not mean we show outlaw them. It is up to the individual to make a good or bad decision. Again, my personal philosophy.

 

I am sorry you have had to deal with cancer issues in your family. Smoking is one of the worst habits both to those who smoke, and for those that have to occassionally deal with the smoky reprecussions (smokey cars, hotel rooms, etc...) And, I completely understand your "world as their ashtray" comment! Again, I don't smoke, and generally hate it when those around me do. However, one of the key notions of a free society is that people have the freedom to make both good and bad decisions. We may not like the decisions that are bad, and can try to influence certain behavior. But, at the end of the day, it is up to the individual. Making it illegal, despite your good intentions, only jails smokers that can't get over their bad habit, and ends up costing society more in the long run not only finalcially, but societally as well. I think anyone buying a Justin Bieber cd or watching a "Twilight" film should be jailed. But, that's a different topic...

 

Making things illegal doesn't stop it. Just look at prisons. I'm not sure there's an easier place to get contriband than there. And you'd think, intrinsically, that there should be no more difficult a place.

 

 

 

Agreed.

 

 

 

That is a VERY big stretch in my opinion. I don't think the drug laws were set up with racial intentions. They were set up with drug intentions, but it just happens to have affected some communities more than others. How can this be remedied? DON'T DO DRUGS. It really is that simple. One can't blame a police officer for arresting all of one kind of person when nearly each arrest is on a person committing crime. The focus should be on stopping crime, not stopping specific people committing crime. Hence, crimes being committed are being stopped.

 

Side note: The argument is especially ridiculous when considering that Jamarcus Russell is a millionaire.

 

 

 

I think you've contradicted yourself a bit. You admit that the people are weak, and abuse drugs because they are weak, but then claim that all they need is help. What's to stop them from abusing again after their help? The question is rhetorical because the answer is nothing. What we need is MUCH harsher penalties for things that are illegal, not coddling. The reason people continue to commit crime at alarming rates is that the penalties are not convincing or persuasive enough (i.e. chain gangs, hard labor, executions). FEAR of going to prison should be instilled in the population, not general apathy. Perhaps if people were actually afraid of prison, afraid of their punishments, then less crime would be committed. Of course, I'm not a big believer in rehabilitation. I believe in the fear of possible punishment over rehabilitation.

 

Side note: I was in the Netherlands last month, and felt more unsafe in several skinny alleys than I do/did in Detroit, Memphis, and/or Chicago. Having said that, the comparison is false because A] Netherlands is a country that doesn't face nearly the type of turmoil we face on any level, and B] The saturation of drug use does not spread country-wide, but instead focuses almost primarily in Amsterdam.

 

 

 

In principle, yet again, I agree. However, the public to a certain extent needs to be protected from itself. If something is illegal, then NO, as a private property owner you should not have the PRIVILEGE to allow smoking (because smoking is not a "right"). If you were allowed, then a very slippery slope is created where you as a bar owner get to determine various other things contradictory to laws that are in place. If a law is put in place to protect many from the destructive habits of others, then I'll probably be for it. It's the same reason people can drink, they can drive, but they can't drink and drive. Their bad habits negatively affect others.

 

Side Note: Family has been hit by the cancer bug twice, and smoking/smokers really piss me off. I think smoking itself should be illegal because it's causing more deaths per year than anything else (i.e. heart diseases, cancer, respiratory diseases), which is aside from the fact that smokers think the world is their ashtray.

 

 

 

Agreed (except on whether or not marijuana should be legal for any reason).

 

[jason]

I agree. It is a stretch, especially in this day and age. However, even just reading this wikipedia article...(and we know it's 100%, but I gurantee you can find more info out there)...you can see that racial elements do intertwine with the US's drug policy.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_(drugs)

 

I'm sorry if I wan't clearer on my take of "weakness" regarding drug users. There is honestly nothing than can or, in my opinion, should stop someone from taking drugs. Only that person's will power can or should stop that person. That will power can be helped along by friends, family, church, rehabilitation, etc. But only that person can make it happen or not. I basically refuse to be judge, jury and executioner...and nor do I want my govt to be that. If the person is weak and can't stop, at least give him or her safe haven to purchase clean needles, etc and untainted drugs. But, the moment that person drives, etc while on drugs, that's when I believe a crime is actually committed. I just disagee that harsher penalties stop crime. People still murder in states that have the death penalty. Penalty can be a deterrent, and is for the most part. But, you cannot truly stop anything via that alone. Prison scares the living hell out of me. I've seen Oz! But, that's me...

 

Dang! I was in the Netherlands about 20 years ago and didn't feel that. I guess things have changed! Yes, it is a different land with a different history, etc. Maybe not a perfect comparison. But, they seem to have the correct philosophy on it. Unless it's turned into Detroit Rock City over the last 20 years! But, I also think Canada has similar laws or decriminalization.

 

I basically disagree that the public needs to be protected from itself. Right or wrong, people need to make decisions for themselves. If ill is caused to someone else due to those bad decisions, then, and only then, should punishment be administered. At least, that's my view. I'm not sure your particular example of smoking in bars is applicable. I'm running on the notion that smoking is legal, therefore, smoking in a private establishment, in theory, should be legal. In a public place, like Federal, state, local govt buildings areas, no.

 

I agree, bad habits can be infectious. But, just because they are, does not mean we show outlaw them. It is up to the individual to make a good or bad decision. Again, my personal philosophy.

 

I am sorry you have had to deal with cancer issues in your family. Smoking is one of the worst habits both to those who smoke, and for those that have to occassionally deal with the smoky reprecussions (smokey cars, hotel rooms, etc...) And, I completely understand your "world as their ashtray" comment! Again, I don't smoke, and generally hate it when those around me do. However, one of the key notions of a free society is that people have the freedom to make both good and bad decisions. We may not like the decisions that are bad, and can try to influence certain behavior. But, at the end of the day, it is up to the individual. Making it illegal, despite your good intentions, only jails smokers that can't get over their bad habit, and ends up costing society more in the long run not only finalcially, but societally as well. I think anyone buying a Justin Bieber cd or watching a "Twilight" film should be jailed. But, that's a different topic...

 

Making things illegal doesn't stop it. Just look at prisons. I'm not sure there's an easier place to get contriband than there. And you'd think, intrinsically, that there should be no more difficult a place.

 

To summarize my thoughts, the reason the prison time does not work as a deterrent is that it's not hard enough. The reason there are still capital offense crimes in states that have the death penalty is that the death penalty is not used frequently enough or early enough. Perhaps others who are more weak-minded just need more convincing, more fear, more penalties.

 

As for your private vs. public thoughts on smoking, let me put it the way it's been said numerous times. I can swing my fists legally, but the minute I swing and hit someone else is when it becomes illegal. Therefore, the smoking in a public place should be banned. Whether I choose to walk into the "fist" is inconsequential because A] I was affected, and B] It has been deemed illegal. The privilege to make good and bad decisions ends as soon as someone else is illegally affected.

 

As for Justin Bieber, I completely agree. In general I agree with the Twilight comment as well, unless the person watches the movie to make fun of it.

[madlithuanian]

Fair enough. I think we just disagree on some of the finer points. I don't think it should be a crime, so harsher penalties don't really help the matter from my philosophical viewpoint.

 

I do vehemently disagree about Twilight! It should be watched under NO circumstance other than a guaranteed romantic encounter with a top tier model! Making fun of it isn't enough! I make fun of it with ease, and I haven't seen anything but the miserable trailers!

 

 

 

 

 

To summarize my thoughts, the reason the prison time does not work as a deterrent is that it's not hard enough. The reason there are still capital offense crimes in states that have the death penalty is that the death penalty is not used frequently enough or early enough. Perhaps others who are more weak-minded just need more convincing, more fear, more penalties.

 

As for your private vs. public thoughts on smoking, let me put it the way it's been said numerous times. I can swing my fists legally, but the minute I swing and hit someone else is when it becomes illegal. Therefore, the smoking in a public place should be banned. Whether I choose to walk into the "fist" is inconsequential because A] I was affected, and B] It has been deemed illegal. The privilege to make good and bad decisions ends as soon as someone else is illegally affected.

 

As for Justin Bieber, I completely agree. In general I agree with the Twilight comment as well, unless the person watches the movie to make fun of it.