Men of Serenes Forest!

[Zanarkin]

This new banner is fucking great.

[Ephraim's Babe]

dont mind me

 

 

 

 

just a random gay person passing by

[eclipse]

9 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

If for whatever reason law didn't work out, the only other thing I could really see myself doing is teaching. I did some substitute work back when I was still looking for a full time law job. Think I could've been a decent social studies or history teacher.
 

Trust me, you'd hate yourself about three months in.  Some people don't want to learn, but you have to make them learn, or you'll look bad when the standardized test scores come in.

Don't get me started on the parents.

[Nym]

10 hours ago, eclipse said:

Trust me, you'd hate yourself about three months in.  Some people don't want to learn, but you have to make them learn, or you'll look bad when the standardized test scores come in.

Don't get me started on the parents.

That's highschool though, if you are teacher in say college, you have less of this since you are teaching adults.

[NinjaMonkey]

On ‎22‎/‎04‎/‎2018 at 5:47 PM, Shoblongoo said:

...that's the part that would bother me. Not the innocent man accused; but the man who is actually guilty under the law, and who I'd be duty bound as a prosecutor to send to jail. When it is the law I believe to be a social harm in need of correction--not the man who broke it. That's why I could never be a prosecutor.

Surely it's a bigger social harm to let a murderer/rapist/whatever be free to roam the streets and hurt more people, then it is to lock them up in prison?

Also, I have a question: Say I was on holiday in the US and saw a person murder another. Would the authorities forcibly keep me in the country until the trial ends, or just take my statement and allow me to go home?

Edited April 26, 2018 by NinjaMonkey

[Rezzy]

2 hours ago, Nym said:

That's highschool though, if you are teacher in say college, you have less of this since you are teaching adults.

You would think so, but adults can be worse than kids.  At least that's how it is with patients 

[Johann]

13 hours ago, Motendra said:

Yeah,  that's kinda the direction I was trying to steer into with my earlier question. That only you two responded had me a little disappointed despite both being good answers, but then again, it wasn't the best one to go off of now that I think on it. But alas, I don't think I have the life experience to facilitate such a thing anyway

Even if you don't think you possess the life experience, you certainly possess a great deal of awareness, which is also vital. There are definitely ways you can contribute if you wanted to, especially in discussion.

13 hours ago, Ephraim's Babe said:

dont mind me

just a random gay person passing by

Welcome! 

11 minutes ago, NinjaMonkey said:

Surely it's a bigger social harm to let a murderer/rapist/whatever be free to roam the streets and hurt more people, then it is to lock them up in prison?

As a criminal prosecutor, he'd be spending the majority of his time in court against people who are being tried for things like possession of drugs. Part of the reason we have an absurdly high rate of incarceration in the US is because of how aggressively the law punishes people, notably for non-violent crimes, with no real effort to actually rehabilitate or reintegrate these offenders back into society.

[Nym]

2 minutes ago, Rezzy said:

You would think so, but adults can be worse than kids.  At least that's how it is with patients 

Oh really? I don't remember very well the last time I went to a hospital (but women doctors are less scary than men for what I can remember).

In my cégep (and also the one that I previously had for two years), this is the completely the opposite of highschool. Teachers aren't wasting their time with students' phone and are very chill for the most part.

[Johann]

6 minutes ago, Rezzy said:

You would think so, but adults can be worse than kids.  At least that's how it is with patients 

I dunno about that, I've been teaching adults of all ages, including kids fresh out of high school, and I've never had to deal with shitty behavior. Everyone's there because they care, at the very least about getting a decent grade, while the truly lazy students don't even show up.

[Ansem]

4 hours ago, Nym said:

That's highschool though, if you are teacher in say college, you have less of this since you are teaching adults.

College students are generally more mature I would say, like you don't have kids interupting whole lecture halls for shock value like some kid would do in high school, but undergrads come with their own problems too. Apathy towards subject material being taught, herd mentality in the course evals that could hurt the careers of someone who spent their whole lives trying to make it academia ect. 

And then the problems outside the lecture hall associated with young men and women living together. That is a whole other monster. 

 

[NinjaMonkey]

3 hours ago, Johann said:

As a criminal prosecutor, he'd be spending the majority of his time in court against people who are being tried for things like possession of drugs. Part of the reason we have an absurdly high rate of incarceration in the US is because of how aggressively the law punishes people, notably for non-violent crimes, with no real effort to actually rehabilitate or reintegrate these offenders back into society.

Thing is, as a defense attorney, I'm sure he'd be hired to defend those accused of drug offenses.

[Johann]

58 minutes ago, NinjaMonkey said:

Thing is, as a defense attorney, I'm sure he'd be hired to defend those accused of drug offenses.

It's pretty clear from his posts that he'd be cool with that.

Let me ask you something-- what are your thoughts on recreational drug use and laws? Same question for anyone else here.

[Zanarkin]

1 hour ago, Johann said:

Let me ask you something-- what are your thoughts on recreational drug use and laws? Same question for anyone else here.

Laws that prohibit possession or use cause more harm than good. The "crime" of using drugs can only hurt the person using the drugs. Sure you could say drug influenced people can do dangerous things that could put others at risk, like driving. However, we have other laws for that. You don't see people claiming alcohol needs to be illegal so that we can stop drunk driving. Just because a person is impaired does not mean that they are not responsible for their actions. Plus it costs a shit ton to enforce. Also, we know that drug laws are one of the most epic failures we still stick to for some dumbass reason. The war on drugs is a futile and costly war.

[NinjaMonkey]

15 hours ago, Johann said:

Let me ask you something-- what are your thoughts on recreational drug use and laws?

I think the UK drug laws are fine as they are.

[Shoblongoo]

On 4/26/2018 at 1:55 PM, Rezzy said:

adults can be worse than kids.  

I had a 58 year old man start throwing things and flop to the ground--crying and going red-in-the-face and kicking and screaming. Like a fucking 5-year-old.

Because we were in the middle of a divorce mediation. And that was his response to hearing how much he was going to have to pay in alimony.  

20 hours ago, SlayerX said:

Laws that prohibit possession or use cause more harm than good. The "crime" of using drugs can only hurt the person using the drugs. Sure you could say drug influenced people can do dangerous things that could put others at risk, like driving. However, we have other laws for that. You don't see people claiming alcohol needs to be illegal so that we can stop drunk driving. Just because a person is impaired does not mean that they are not responsible for their actions. Plus it costs a shit ton to enforce. Also, we know that drug laws are one of the most epic failures we still stick to for some dumbass reason. The war on drugs is a futile and costly war.

This is one of those classic its important to know history, because those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it moments.

...Not anymore you don't, but we tried it for a decade back in the 1920s...  

• People still drank
• We put lawful liquor businesses out of business and put production + distribution entirely in the hands of organized crime syndicates
• We created a culture of gang violence and turf wars around the production and control of liquor distribution
• We filled prisons with non-violent recreational drinkers who had no business being in the criminal justice system
• The government lost money from taxes on lawful liquor sales, and wasted money executing a pointless police campaign against the high volumes of persons who continued to to drink in defiance of the law.
• If a drunk person needed medical treatment they would be hesitant to go to the hospital, for fear of being reported and turned over to police by hospital staff. People needlessly died from treatable injuries and ailments. 

The policy was ultimately deemed a complete failure, done away with entirely in 1932, and no one after that decade of failed policy ever seriously broached the idea of making alcohol illegal again.

In its place we adopted a comprehensive policy of legal, but regulated. Where alcohol itself is not illegal, but:

• Its illegal to sell to minors
• Its illegal to drink underage
• Its illegal to operate a motor vehicle or use heavy machinery while drunk
• Its illegal to cause a disturbance of the peace while being publicly intoxicated
• It is illegal to sell alcohol without a liquor licence
• All bottled alcohol sold must contain a label displaying the % alcohol content of the alcoholic beverage. 
• It is illegal to misrepresent the % alcohol content of a bottled beverage
• Evidence that a person was drunk at the time of an incident alleged in a civil suit, when said person was performing a task that required extraordinary care or attention to detail, is admissible in court to support a finding that said person was negligent.                 

Thus striking a balance between the right of the individual to drink for their own enjoyment without being harassed by the law, and the societal need for remedies against harms associated with misuse of alcohol.

That current approach to alcohol, I would think, is the correct policy approach for the recreational use of drugs. Our current policy instead reflects our attitudes towards alcohol in the 1920s, and produces the same policy failures. 

...We looked at history, and we didn't learn a damn thing...

 

22 hours ago, NinjaMonkey said:

Thing is, as a defense attorney, I'm sure he'd be hired to defend those accused of drug offenses.

Thats mainly who defense attorneys get hired by because thats the main body of criminally accused persons going through the Criminal Justice System in America.

The murderer. The child molester. The robber. They're comparatively rare.

Most persons looking at serious criminal penalties in this country are in the system because of drug offenses. Thats the high-volume caseload of what you see as a criminal defense attorney.    

  
 

Edited April 27, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Johann]

16 hours ago, SlayerX said:

Laws that prohibit possession or use cause more harm than good. The "crime" of using drugs can only hurt the person using the drugs. Sure you could say drug influenced people can do dangerous things that could put others at risk, like driving. However, we have other laws for that. You don't see people claiming alcohol needs to be illegal so that we can stop drunk driving. Just because a person is impaired does not mean that they are not responsible for their actions. Plus it costs a shit ton to enforce. Also, we know that drug laws are one of the most epic failures we still stick to for some dumbass reason. The war on drugs is a futile and costly war.

You have the right idea, and I think Shob's detailed explanation really brings the point home.

2 hours ago, NinjaMonkey said:

I think the UK drug laws are fine as they are.

Care to explain why? A quick Google search tells me that they're similar to the US laws, which are big on punishment but don't really do anything regarding rehabilitation. Not to mention, from what I'm reading, they disproportionately affect minorities at a greater rate than white people, just like in the US.

2 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

That current approach to alcohol, I would think, is the correct policy approach for the recreational use of drugs. Our current policy instead reflects our attitudes towards alcohol in the 1920s, and produces the same policy failures. 

...We looked at history, and we didn't learn a damn thing...

Exactly my thoughts

[Shoblongoo]

[Rezzy]

On 4/27/2018 at 3:49 PM, Shoblongoo said:

What's your over/under on when marijuana becomes legal nationally?

[Shoblongoo]

17 hours ago, Rezzy said:

What's your over/under on when marijuana becomes legal nationally?

I've often compared it to the movement on the issue of gay marriage. Insofar as in the 1990s you wouldn't even hear prominent Democrats calling for nationwide legalization of gay marriage; that was considered an "extreme" position. The change in public opinion and the velocity of movement that we've seen in just the past 20 years was extraordinary. 

Weed has undergone a comparably high velocity shift in public opinion under similar time parameters; it isn't taboo anymore. Its displayed casually in the cultural mainstream. Everyone knows someone whose doing it,  and the once monolithic position that you're "soft on crime" or don't care about "safe neighborhoods for our children" if you're against heavy policing and prosecution of users/sellers has fallen into widespread disdain and ridicule. Its gone so mainstream and the banality of its use has become so observable that the once-authoritative presentations of "Reefer Madness" and "This is your brain. this is your brain ON DRUGS!"  have left he realm of respectable policy discussions, and been relegated to internet comedy. 

 
___________

The difference is that Gay Marriage implicated a constitutional issue arising under the 14th amendment. So at the national level there was no need for legislative action; the issue could be entirely adjudicated and resolved by the judiciary, without the need for any heavy lifting or political courage in Congress.

...thats not the case with the issue of legalizing marijuana...

There is no judicial path to legalization. The Supreme Court has already ruled that the Controlled Substance Act (i.e. the act of Congress which makes marijuana illegal at the federal level) is constitutional and within the scope of Congress's express lawmaking power. The Act will not be overturned by The Court. It must be repealed or amended by Congress. 

Congress is, of course, notorious for being comically unable to get anything done. And for tabling obvious solutions to pressing issues for decades at a time; both sides content to simply blame the other for why nothing is getting done while the underlying issue continues to go unaddressed.

...then you need a president whose actually willing to sign the legalizaiton bill...
 
So Realistically: 2021 at the absolute earliest.  That soon only if Democrats take back the White House in 2020, and hold on to major gains in the House and Senate, AND the incoming administration makes reforming the nation's drug laws a top agenda item over taxes, healthcare, gun control, and immigration. 

Sooooooooo--yeah. No time soon.

Edited May 1, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Ansem]

@democrats clearing house in this midterm elections

here is an odd one virginia congress-hopeful made for his campaign. this man is a real human being 

 

 

[Tediz64]

So.....uh.....yeah.....page one is a poll on underwear. Page 15 is starts off with talk about the life of a teacher and finishes with what is illegal plus the details of how it is illegal. I don't even want to look at pages 2 through 14 lol. And yet i was recommended to come here? hmmm should i go through and read pages 2 through 14 to find out what my purpose is here or will someone just tell me? Here is a link of where i came from and (i guess why i was recommended here. It is part of what i said)

Edited May 31, 2018 by Tediz64

[Shoblongoo]

13 minutes ago, Tediz64 said:

 I don't even want to look at pages 2 through 14 lol. 

You should definitely look at pages 2 through 14 (prepare yourself)

Edited May 31, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Infinite Dreams]

This thread was great.  You boys need to post again.

[Rezzy]

3 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

You should definitely look at pages 2 through 14 (prepare yourself)

 

57 minutes ago, Infinite Dreams said:

This thread was great.  You boys need to post again.

We need both of these threads back.

[Infinite Dreams]

I agree, Rezzy.  Maybe I'll give the other one a bump later.