Previous  1  2

Yep that's how you get sentenced for being unable to report to your parole officer because the state poisoned you and put you in a coma.
Oink Oink! (not you, the blind obedience to the letter of the law concept)

You do seem to be equating being let out in the morning with three strikes you're out locked up for life laws.

   

When they decrimmed all drugs in Portugal they actually upped the penalties for manufacturing and/or distribution. Except weed. You could grow your own, just not sell it.
When you get caught for simple possession of anything other then weed, you go before a tribunal who recommends either rehab, jail time or to simply drop the matter entirely. Since that time they've seen an overall decrease in drug use, including alcohol related offenses. What was interesting is there wasn't a huge increase in marijuana use AND there was even a slight decrease in use among teenagers under 18.
The money they save by not making simple possession of drugs a jailable offense gets used, at least in part, to pay for the rehab of those appearing before the tribunal who want the rehab.

   

Well, we do when they start pissing on cars while singing "Don't Stop Believing" by Journey at the top of your lungs at 3:30 in the morning a residential neighbourhood.

   

I would say that you are partially correct. The drunk in public charge IS locking people up for drinking alcohol. A person can get drunk in their home and than get arrested when they leave their home for being drunk in public. They do not have to have any alcohol in their possession to be arrested for drunk in public. The person smoking on the plane is bothering other people at the time. The person who smoked a cigarette 5 minutes before boarding the plane is not bothering anyone. It would be like subjecting people to a test proving that they have no nicotine in their system before boarding the flight, reporting for work, etc., or to go around arresting people for simply having nicotine in their system.

Most drunk in public charges do not even require a chemical test for conviction, officer testimony will usually suffice. I actually seen a live PD show where a car got pulled over for a traffic infraction, and a passenger was arrested for being drunk in public. I do not see how being a passenger in a private motor vehicle can be deemed to be drunk in public. Sounds like total bullshit to me.

I think the new law in Oregon is a positive step in the right direction. The post that I was responding to was making it sound like alcohol users get a free pass, they don't. Oregon still has an open container law on the books. The car does not have to be moving, or even running for that matter. Four people can be partying in a parked car when the cops pull up. The people who are using heroin, meth, coke, etc., cannot be arrested under the new law. The people who have an open container of alcohol get a pair of silver bracelets, a trip to the jail, and a court date. That does not seem fair. None of them should be taking a ride.

Every sip that a homeless alcoholic takes is in violation of the law in most locales. They do not have a home. They are not allowed to enter a bar. Every sip is drinking in public. His addiction constitutes a neverending involvement with the criminal justice system.

   

What happens when a homeless alcoholic cannot afford to pay the fine? He needs every dime that he can scrounge up to stay alive and feed his habit. He does not have disposable income to pay a fine. When he does not pay the fine, he is looking at jail time, is he not? When a person gets arrested the court places restrictions on the person as a condition to being released before the court date. Not using alcohol is almost always one of these conditions, even if the offence did not involve alcohol. If an alcoholic stops drinking they can get the DT"s and die. When he gets arrested again while waiting for his case, he will now be charged with violation of pre release conditions/ probation violation. If he keeps getting arrested he will be charged with being a habitual offender.

You play it down like paying a fine is no big deal. It might not be a big deal to someone like you and me. We have jobs. We have some disposable income to pay a fine. We have a home to drink in and not get continuously charged for public intoxication. Being homeless sucks. For many of them, getting intoxicated is the only way they make it through the day. Lets stop arresting AND ticketing them. Jail is not going to fix their problems. Fines are not going to fix their problems. I do not have all the answers to fix their problems, but I do know what does NOT work.

   

No, I am doing what I always do; using the truth to make my point. I wrote nothing about paying fines. I wrote nothing about homelessness or alcoholism. I wrote simple facts; anything on the US Schedule 1 list is illegal and possession comes with jail time. You are attributing to me arguments I am not making.

Not paying a fine, public intoxication; are all different charges. They are not charges for possessing alcohol. There is no charge for possessing alcohol, only for using it improperly.

Unless you want to count bootlegging, or not paying your taxes/duty on that alcohol. Then it's illegal to possess unless you made it yourself.

   

We keep telling you, you are an alto, not a soprano. That's the crime.

   

I've literally never witnesses someone be charged with drunk in public while minding their own business. The only time it happened was because they were disturbing the peace.

   

So what exactly are we arguing about?

Do we want to criminalize booze because some people abuse it... like drugs?
Or do we want to decriminalize drugs because some people abuse them... like booze?

Pretty much anything can be abused, including politics and religion... and I could probably kill you with my 2B pencil.

   

I was arguing your point, that alcohol isn't illegal. Neither should addictions be.

   

Exactly...

   

I actually think that we simply need more variants and options for relaxation, and make different categories for drugs, which would be something like "light", "medium", "hard", etc. What do you think about it? Talking of which, do you think that magic mushrooms should be labeled like "drugs"? I don't think so. I wish we would have more choices to get them. Nowadays, when I need to get them I use this resource to buy magic mushrooms spores and get them by third-party companies. It should be much easier than nowadays.

   

Why would we pigeon hole recreational activities?

We don't consider a person who plays Golf as less had core than one who plays Squash. Recreational activities are personal preference.

   

I'm not arguing, you're arguing. Wait... is this a 5 month or a 10 month argument?

   

Previous  1  2