• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

District Attorney Kim Ogg: No jail for marijuana misdemeanors

TurtleDude said:
yeah lets tax our citizens thousands of dollars a year to incarcerate people who are less dangerous than drinkers. Brilliant idea

A better idea-jail politicians who think that weed ought to be illegal
Click to expand...

I'm not in that cesspool but its my impression that no one is going to prison for simple pocession
 
Ty
Mr Person said:
1. Anyone who has been following the conversation or who hits the ">>" button a few times will see that you've moved the goalposts.

2. You are falling pretty to an emotional reaction, which is clouding your response to marginal risks. The only real risks we know about with marijuana is:

- Temporary short term memory loss and difficulty concentrating, depending on dose, tolerance, amount consumed, for 2-3 hours.


- Possible reduction in IQ for people who (1) are underage, (2) smoke heavily, (3) do so chronically

---- caveat being that no attempt was made in those studies to distinguish between juveniles who did their schoolwork then got high and those who got high and did not do their school work. The relevance is ongoing debate regarding the effect of education, particularly language and mathematics, on IQ, given how IQ is tested.


- A very slight increased risk of emphyzema, provided you smoke like Willie Nelson: Minimum of 5 'standard' (as if) joints per day, every day, for 10-30+ years.

- Potential decreased risk of certain cancers in certain populations.

- Potential fast food or junk food consumption following use.



In other words, merely living in a city is far more dangerous, even when one alone looks at the effect of concentrated pollution on cancer rates (ignoring additional dangers related to crime, accident, etc).

But those are details and facts. Better to stick with a gut emotional response "drugs are bad mmmmkay (unless it's ethanol or nicotine-containing tobacco)", right? Less thought required, plus you get a nice self-righteous buzz articulating that basis of opposition.
Click to expand...

I am not trying to change anyones mind about drugs

We could duel over the harm or lack of harm associated with pot, crack, heroin, cocaine, meth and prescription opiates.

But I would be wasting my time trying to convince you to support tougher drug lows

I'm just giving my opinion To anyone who cares to listen
 
Mac77 said:
but its my impression that no one is going to prison for simple pocession
Click to expand...

the-look-the-emperor-gives-when-you-are-mistaken-about-4284499.png
 
Mac77 said:
But I would be wasting my time trying to convince you to support tougher drug lows
Click to expand...

Yeah, because they wouldn't work :shrug:

I'm just giving my opinion To anyone who cares to listen
Click to expand...

And we are annihilating that opinion, as it deserves to be annihilated.
 
Mac77 said:
Not everyone considers outlawing harmful drugs to be a foolish idea
Click to expand...

Mr Person said:
1. Anyone who has been following the conversation or who hits the ">>" button a few times will see that you've moved the goalposts.

2. You are falling pretty to an emotional reaction, which is clouding your response to marginal risks. The only real risks we know about with marijuana is:

- Temporary short term memory loss and difficulty concentrating, depending on dose, tolerance, amount consumed, for 2-3 hours.


- Possible reduction in IQ for people who (1) are underage, (2) smoke heavily, (3) do so chronically

---- caveat being that no attempt was made in those studies to distinguish between juveniles who did their schoolwork then got high and those who got high and did not do their school work. The relevance is ongoing debate regarding the effect of education, particularly language and mathematics, on IQ, given how IQ is tested.


- A very slight increased risk of emphyzema, provided you smoke like Willie Nelson: Minimum of 5 'standard' (as if) joints per day, every day, for 10-30+ years.

- Potential decreased risk of certain cancers in certain populations.

- Potential fast food or junk food consumption following use.



In other words, merely living in a city is far more dangerous, even when one alone looks at the effect of concentrated pollution on cancer rates (ignoring additional dangers related to crime, accident, etc).

But those are details and facts. Better to stick with a gut emotional response "drugs are bad mmmmkay (unless it's ethanol or nicotine-containing tobacco)", right? Less thought required, plus you get a nice self-righteous buzz articulating that basis of opposition.
Click to expand...

Mac77 said:
Ty

I am not trying to change anyones mind about drugs

We could duel over the harm or lack of harm associated with pot, crack, heroin, cocaine, meth and prescription opiates.

But I would be wasting my time trying to convince you to support tougher drug lows

I'm just giving my opinion To anyone who cares to listen
Click to expand...


I listened to your opinion. I explained why it has no factual or logical basis. I explained why I thought the only possible basis could be an emotional one, and then expressed my disdain for crafting laws that wreak objective harm based on emotions, rather than on facts and logic that indicate the harm caused is less than the harm prevented.



Silly me, I thought the point of a political debate site was to actually argue, with support, about the validity of said "opinions."

I did not think the point was to say some crap, then cut & run when someone shows it up for crap. Can you counter my factual points or are you admitting that your opinion is irrational?
 
danarhea said:
It's not non-compliance. They are still convicted, but the DA has every right to recommend sentence. That the sentence is a fine instead of jail is great news, as that will free our jails for real criminals, like bankers.
Click to expand...

In most of texas, it varies upon local laws, but around bell county possession is usually a fine unless it is a repeat offender. Alot of counties allow a judge to issue alternative punishment to jail time like a fine or comunity service, I am not sure if these laws match up with state laws on the matter, but so far the state has not intervened.
 
beerftw said:
In most of texas, it varies upon local laws, but around bell county possession is usually a fine unless it is a repeat offender. Alot of counties allow a judge to issue alternative punishment to jail time like a fine or comunity service, I am not sure if these laws match up with state laws on the matter, but so far the state has not intervened.
Click to expand...

What you posted is exactly in accordance with the state sentencing guidelines.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Yeah, because they wouldn't work :shrug:



And we are annihilating that opinion, as it deserves to be annihilated.
Click to expand...

Again, I dont expect drug supporters to agree with me.

I'm just telling you what I think

But I do read your objections
 
Mr Person said:
I listened to your opinion.

I explained why it has no factual or logical basis. I explained why I thought the only possible basis could be an emotional one, and then expressed my disdain for crafting laws that wreak objective harm based on emotions, rather than on facts and logic that indicate the harm caused is less than the harm prevented.



Silly me, I thought the point of a political debate site was to actually argue, with support, about the validity of said "opinions."

I did not think the point was to say some crap, then cut & run when someone shows it up for crap. Can you counter my factual points or are you admitting that your opinion is irrational?
Click to expand...

And I listened to yours

What else are you expecting?
 
Mac77 said:
Again, I dont expect drug supporters to agree with me.
Click to expand...

People who think locking up drug users may not necessarily be the answer to the drug issue, can hardly be classified as "Drug Supporters" or want anything to do with drugs :shrug:

I'm just telling you what I think
Click to expand...

And we're telling you what we think of what you think.

It's all rather simple stuff, try to keep up champ.

But I do read your objections
Click to expand...

But the question is, do you understand them?

I don't think so.
 
Jetboogieman said:
People who think locking up drug users may not necessarily be the answer to the drug issue, can hardly be classified as "Drug Supporters" or want anything to do with drugs :shrug:
Click to expand...

You support the legslization of harmfull drugs

How would you prefer to be called?



But the question is, do you understand them?

I don't think so.
Click to expand...

surprisingly I do understand what you are saying

I just dont agree
 
Mac77 said:
You support the legslization of harmfull drugs

How would you prefer to be called?
Click to expand...

My personal feelings aside on Marijuana specifically, at the very least, if nothing else we must decriminalize small time possession for all drugs, we cannot continue to lock people up for being addicts or not for that matter, use the money saved from locking these people up like animals to expand treatment programs.

There are people who don't appreciate drugs and who think like I do about decriminalization who it's simply dishonest to classify as "Drug Supporters".

surprisingly I do understand what you are saying

I just dont agree
Click to expand...

If you understood the harm your prohibitionist stance does to society, you would not continue to support it, therefore you don't understand what we are saying.
 
Mac77 said:
And I listened to yours

What else are you expecting?
Click to expand...

Should I highlight those bits?

Mr Person said:
I listened to your opinion. I explained why it has no factual or logical basis. I explained why I thought the only possible basis could be an emotional one, and then expressed my disdain for crafting laws that wreak objective harm based on emotions, rather than on facts and logic that indicate the harm caused is less than the harm prevented.

Silly me, I thought the point of a political debate site was to actually argue, with support, about the validity of said "opinions."

I did not think the point was to say some crap, then cut & run when someone shows it up for crap. Can you counter my factual points or are you admitting that your opinion is irrational?
Click to expand...





Seems like you're just trolling.
 
Wait just a sec.

Kim Ogg? Not related to Gytha?
 
Mac77 said:
I'm not in that cesspool but its my impression that no one is going to prison for simple pocession
Click to expand...

no one should be in jail for any type of possessing stuff that grows naturally around most of the USA. There are probably thousands of the plants growing wild in Kentucky and southern ohio
 
TurtleDude said:
no one should be in jail for any type of possessing stuff that grows naturally around most of the USA. There are probably thousands of the plants growing wild in Kentucky and southern ohio
Click to expand...

Based on that reply I think you are telling me I was right
 
Mac77 said:
Based on that reply I think you are telling me I was right
Click to expand...

People have gone to jail for possession or that DA would have never said what the DA said
 
Jetboogieman said:
Which is more harmful to teenagers, Jail or Pot?
Click to expand...

It's not, for me anyway, an either or decision. I agree that jail for simple possession can do more harm than good. However, the article linked below, from the American Psychological Association says (among other things) the following:

LINK

[...]

What's clear, however, is that marijuana's signature high comes from a psychoactive component known as tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). And evidence is mounting, says Weiss, that THC is not risk-free.

In the short term, marijuana use has been shown to impair functions such as attention, memory, learning and decision-making. Those effects can last for days after the high wears off. Heavy marijuana use in adolescence or early adulthood has been associated with a dismal set of life outcomes including poor school performance, higher dropout rates, increased welfare dependence, greater unemployment and lower life satisfaction.
[...]
Click to expand...

I have no problem with legalization for adult use, but young people should not be allowed to use it because scientific research has shown that the brain does not reach full development until between the ages of 25 and 30. So allowing legal use should have a pretty high age limit.

So again, it isn't an either (jail) or (smoke 'em if you got 'em) choice for me.
 
Beaudreaux said:
I have no problem with legalization for adult use, but young people should not be allowed to use it because scientific research has shown that the brain does not reach full development until between the ages of 25 and 30. So allowing legal use should have a pretty high age limit.

So again, it isn't an either (jail) or (smoke 'em if you got 'em) choice for me.
Click to expand...

I'll leave the study alone for a moment and let's get to the nitty gritty.

We'll never, ever be able to stop kids from using dope anymore than we can stop them drinking, but it is more limited in a situation in which it is heavily regulated but legal.

Case in point, when I was a teenager, it was much easier to get weed than alcohol.
 
Jetboogieman said:
My personal feelings aside on Marijuana specifically, at the very least, if nothing else we must decriminalize small time possession for all drugs, we cannot continue to lock people up for being addicts or not for that matter, use the money saved from locking these people up like animals to expand treatment programs.

There are people who don't appreciate drugs and who think like I do about decriminalization who it's simply dishonest to classify as "Drug Supporters".



If you understood the harm your prohibitionist stance does to society,

you would not continue to support it, therefore you don't understand what we are saying.
Click to expand...

I better understand the harm that illegal drugs do to society.

The wasted lives, the broken families,

The utter stupidity of drug addicts
 
Mac77 said:
I better understand the harm that illegal drugs do to society.

The wasted lives, the broken families,

The utter stupidity of drug addicts
Click to expand...

Does Jail and harsh punishment fix any of that?

Treatment, not caging them like animals, is the answer.

We don't punish people for Caffeine addiction, alcohol addiction (Unless they commit a crime in conjunction with being drunk) and same goes with prescription drug abuse which is rampant, especially with opioids.

Why do we then do it with drug addicts?

Drugs can be harmful to society, but prohibition has been exponentially more harmful, it has single handily wrought death and destruction on a world scale, made criminals who engage in distribution immensely rich and it's done nothing to stop the proliferation of those drugs, it's done nothing to help addicts, it's jailed people on an unimaginable scale while most people who've ever used drugs never end up a horror case, leading to the wasted lives and broken families :shrug

The policies you support are counter-intuitive and just plain wrong.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Does Jail and harsh punishment fix any of that?

Treatment, not caging them like animals, is the answer.

We don't punish people for Caffeine addiction, alcohol addiction (Unless they commit a crime in conjunction with being drunk) and same goes with prescription drug abuse which is rampant, especially with opioids.

Why do we then do it with drug addicts?

Drugs can be harmful to society, but prohibition has been exponentially more harmful, it has single handily wrought death and destruction on a world scale, made criminals who engage in distribution immensely rich and it's done nothing to stop the proliferation of those drugs, it's done nothing to help addicts, it's jailed people on an unimaginable scale while most people who've ever used drugs never end up a horror case, leading to the wasted lives and broken families :shrug

The policies you support are counter-intuitive and just plain wrong.
Click to expand...

Actually, the War on Drugs is a very good thing if you own stock in Corrections Corporation of America. LOL.
 
danarhea said:
The previous prosecutor in Harris County was a "hang 'em high" type who sentenced people to jail, and once actually charged a rape victim with contempt of court, and had her put in jail because she had a mental breakdown because of the rape, and couldn't testify against her rapist.
Click to expand...

Oh.my.effing.god. I hope the victim was acquitted.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Does Jail and harsh punishment fix any of that?

Treatment, not caging them like animals, is the answer.

We don't punish people for Caffeine addiction, alcohol addiction (Unless they commit a crime in conjunction with being drunk) and same goes with prescription drug abuse which is rampant, especially with opioids.

Why do we then do it with drug addicts?

Drugs can be harmful to society, but prohibition has been exponentially more harmful, it has single handily wrought death and destruction on a world scale, made criminals who engage in distribution immensely rich and it's done nothing to stop the proliferation of those drugs, it's done nothing to help addicts, it's jailed people on an unimaginable scale while most people who've ever used drugs never end up a horror case, leading to the wasted lives and broken families :shrug

The policies you support are counter-intuitive and just plain wrong.
Click to expand...

Jail for illegal drug dealers?

I think it helps to take off the street as often as possible

But very few simple drug users go to prison.

In fact none of them do I suspect
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom