Teen gets two years for selling one joint.

August 22, 2006 9:05 AM

17 year old kid gets 2 years for selling 20 dollars of pot, enough for 1 joint. The entire town is basically a "No Drug Zone" so they used federal law to give the kid the mandatory 2 years. The Drug Policy Alliance has put together a video that really hits home on the war against the American people.
posted by IronWolve (234 comments total)

But where do YOU stand on the issue, IronWolve, that's what I want to know.
posted by jonson at 9:08 AM on August 22, 2006 [1 favorite]

What the hell kind of a rip-off is $20 for one joint?
posted by Artw at 9:12 AM on August 22, 2006 [1 favorite]

Is it me or does this asshole prosecutor look just like Bill O'Reilly?
posted by geoff. at 9:13 AM on August 22, 2006

I feel bad for the kid, but come on, it is against the law. There's a perfectly good reason not to do drugs, and that is because you could end up in jail. Isn't that reason enough to go without?

I have to say the attitude on that blog in the first link probably mirrors the kids thinking - the heinous crime of not only selling pot (Gasp!), but doing it within 1,000 feet of a school (Double Gasp!!) - the smug defiance of the self-indulgent.

Wake the hell up. The federal governemtn has chosen for whatever reason to make this a top fucking priority. They created an entire law enforcement apparatus around drug prohibition enforcement. They made special laws to keep it away from schools. They are obviously taking it seriously, reagrdless of whether they are wrong. They make the laws. You obey them. You can defy them, but then don't bitch when they throw your ass in prison for breaking the law you were completely aware of and chose to defy. Oh the drug laws are stupid, I see.

I think the insider trading laws are stupid, should I get to break them? Will the internet come to my rescue if I do?
posted by Pastabagel at 9:15 AM on August 22, 2006

Was it a Dutch cone?
posted by NationalKato at 9:16 AM on August 22, 2006

You're right Artw. Street value mandates no more than 10 years but more likely 5.
posted by chillmost at 9:16 AM on August 22, 2006

Pastabagel, I think the point is people are arguing for the repeal of the law...
posted by noble_rot at 9:17 AM on August 22, 2006

After correctly reading the headline again, I realized my previous post makes no sense. Please ignore.
posted by chillmost at 9:17 AM on August 22, 2006

I feel bad for gays, but come on, it is against the law. There's a perfectly good reason not to engage in homosexuality, and that is because you could end up in jail. Is that reason enough to go without?

I have to say the attitude on that blog in the first link probably mirrors the kids thinking - the heinous crime of not only ass fucking (Gasp!), but doing it within 1,000 feet of a mosque (Double Gasp!!) - the smug defiance of the self-indulgent.

Wake the hell up. The Saudi governemtn has chosen for whatever reason to make this a top fucking priority. They created an entire law enforcement apparatus around sodomy prohibition enforcement. They made special laws to keep it away from mosques. They are obviously taking it seriously, reagrdless of whether they are wrong. They make the laws. You obey them. You can defy them, but then don't bitch when they throw your ass in prison for breaking the law you were completely aware of and chose to defy. Oh the moral laws are stupid, I see.
posted by geoff. at 9:18 AM on August 22, 2006 [2 favorites]

There's a perfectly good reason not to do drugs, and that is because you could end up in jail. Isn't that reason enough to go without?

Replace "do drugs" with just about anything and you've got one of the most hollow arguments on MetaFilter today. Good work, PastaBagel. Try it. Replace it with "masturbate" or "martininize your pants" or "swear in the bathroom with the light off".

You can defy them, but then don't bitch when they throw your ass in prison for breaking the law you were completely aware of and chose to defy.

Yeah, because when something makes its otiose nature completely and fully apparent, robbing me of basic freedoms, that's when I like to kick back and take it easy.

Do you lie down like on every issue, guy?
posted by jon_kill at 9:18 AM on August 22, 2006

I think the insider trading laws are stupid, should I get to break them?

Yes, what a fantastic analogy. Your critical thinking is such a gift.

Two years. For a few grams of plant material. How many theives, rapists and other assorted felons get off with less time for serious goddamn crimes? Your black and white lens is worthless in the face of such draconian enforcement.

Replace "do drugs" with just about anything and you've got one of the most hollow arguments on MetaFilter today. Good work, PastaBagel. Try it. Replace it with "masturbate" or "martininize your pants" or "swear in the bathroom with the light off".

No shit. Why are you even here, to wave your arms and act like a fool?
posted by prostyle at 9:19 AM on August 22, 2006 [1 favorite]

Good riddance. Don't be a fool, stay in school, don't sell drugs.
posted by SenshiNeko at 9:20 AM on August 22, 2006

The moral? Never sell to guys with crew-cuts.
posted by wumpus at 9:20 AM on August 22, 2006

...or handlebar moustaches
posted by wumpus at 9:20 AM on August 22, 2006

Let me get this straight:

• Cartoon cats smoking tobacco = bad!
• Real teenagers smoking doobies = good!

posted by keswick at 9:22 AM on August 22, 2006

No keswick, you've got it all wrong: gross generalization = retarded!
posted by prostyle at 9:23 AM on August 22, 2006 [1 favorite]

What's this kid going to learn from 2 years that he isn't going to learn from 2 months?

(there's your setup... now spike that joke into the ground!)
posted by pokermonk at 9:25 AM on August 22, 2006

is there a " no gun zone " around the school i don't think so god bless the u s a
posted by baker dave at 9:26 AM on August 22, 2006

Pastabagel makes a good point. I don't personally agree with the government's stance on drugs or their treatment of drug crimes, but it's not as though it's a big secret. When you elect to break a law, you should do so with full awareness of the consequences. Feigning surprise when you are handed the maximum allowable penalty is just stupid.
posted by casconed at 9:28 AM on August 22, 2006

Obviously this kid will be in far worse shape after spending his 18th and 19th years in prison but I guess the idea is to sacrifice one to save many? Ya know I heard where them heathens back in the day useta toss virgins into volcanoes to make the crops grow.
posted by scheptech at 9:28 AM on August 22, 2006

There's a no-gun-zone around every school, iirc.
posted by wabashbdw at 9:28 AM on August 22, 2006

Hey Pastabagel, are you not familiar with the concept of democracy, i.e. a government of the people for the people by the people? This puts you where, Kohlberg stage 4?

Drug laws are primarily the work of corporations (and racists) such as Dow, who would much rather sell Americans and the rest of the world their synthetic ropes rather than hemp fibers. (Amongst other vested interests that have bought and sold our government over and over again.)

"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."
Federal Bureau of Narcotics Chief Harry J. Anslinger, 1929 (1)

This is the man who pioneered marijuana prohibition.

The law can be wrong, and is. And if you want people to take your opinion seriously, curse less when you express it man.

And yeah, most people could get several joints out of a dub.
posted by Matt Oneiros at 9:29 AM on August 22, 2006

(more) That said, i'm also very much in favor of working intelligently to change said laws. This is not an issue where civil disobedience will be effective, i think.
posted by casconed at 9:30 AM on August 22, 2006

I think the insider trading laws are stupid, should I get to break them?

That's fine , breaking a rule (however debateable it is) needs to produce some kind of effect otherwise some people may think that the rule can be disregarded ; this is rule enforcement mentality.

Yet if I cut your head because a law says I can cut your head if you mispronounce the sacred name of elpapacito (blessed be elpa !) that doesn't tackle the main issue : cutting your head wouldn't have people respect my name (respeck maybe, I like speck) or not take drugs, which _arguably_ should be _effect_ of the law.

So some people think that if a rule "doesn't work" in the sense that it doesn't produce the desidered outcome, it doesn't make sense to respect that law ; yet they are not consciously reject the rule of law, they just think that the law is "stupid"

Which ironically shows they are not that stupid, yet they miss the point why there should be a prohibition to assume drug if I want to and If I don't harm anybody except myself.
posted by elpapacito at 9:31 AM on August 22, 2006

Insider Trading, victims. Sell joint, no victim. You shouldn't compare the two.
posted by tula at 9:32 AM on August 22, 2006

This is not an issue where civil disobedience will be effective, i think.

I dunno, just the other day I was sitting around with my dealer and he struck up the best conversation: "Boy, you know... the high is nice, I love the taste, nice buds... but I really do this to stick it to the goddamn man! Lets go sell some bags to schoolkids on the playground to show them how stupid this is!"

Really!
posted by prostyle at 9:33 AM on August 22, 2006

look, i don't think weed should be illegal. but pastabagel's right - this is a democracy, and the majority do want weed to be illegal. we can't run around hollering about the rule of law and how bush should be indicted for ordering domestic phone taps (arguably, another action that is "harmless" yet illegal, depending on your point of view) and then expect a blind eye to be turned to this kid.

if you want laws enforced across the board, that means the laws you don't like too. it'd be nice if we all lived under a system where everything went down according to our own personal views, but that's not how it is, and everybody knows it. i'm sure this kid knew it too.
posted by sergeant sandwich at 9:33 AM on August 22, 2006

man breaks law, goes to jail, no victim.
posted by wabashbdw at 9:34 AM on August 22, 2006

Is this what you're referring to, baker dave?
posted by Kwantsar at 9:35 AM on August 22, 2006

Anyone know of a google maps-drug free zone mash up? I'd like to, well, um, nevermind.
posted by peeedro at 9:36 AM on August 22, 2006 [1 favorite]

...this is a democracy, and the majority do want weed to be illegal

Citation. This is patently false in various states and the federal government has ignored the 10th amendment to prosecute individuals who were deemed applicable for medical marijuana distribution and growing permits.

...it'd be nice if we all lived under a system where everything went down according to our own personal views, but that's not how it is, and everybody knows it.

Anything else to add to todays special on Reductive Assertion And How it can Benefit You?
posted by prostyle at 9:36 AM on August 22, 2006

You don't need to be against drug laws to think that this is a stupid, axe-grinding post.

The real tragedy here is the going price for marijuana in that town.
posted by mkultra at 9:38 AM on August 22, 2006

What the hell kind of a rip-off is $20 for one joint? - Artw

I read the links and watched the video and I don't see any reference to $20. So it must be IronWolve (wolVE????) editorializing there. The video did say "about a teaspoon". If that's accurate, I'd say IW is probably paying too much for his marijuana.
posted by raedyn at 9:38 AM on August 22, 2006

teen breaks draconian law, goes to jail for two years, people decry it on internet, no victim.
posted by Stauf at 9:38 AM on August 22, 2006

Metafilter: The real tragedy here is the going price for marijuana.
posted by Duncan at 9:39 AM on August 22, 2006

A majority say they want pot to be illegal, maybe. Alas, a majority, I believe, or a very large minority, have tried the shit, and a huge number use it regularly with far less deleterious effects than the majority of legal alcohol users experience and/or cause.

It's a heinous and unjust prohibition, grounded in fear and gain rather than fact and public interest. Examples like this which prove the point are worth expressing outrage over.
posted by fourcheesemac at 9:40 AM on August 22, 2006

(ha, I should have paid attention to the end of the video. It does say $20 in the video. My bad. Still, is that what you all pay for "a teaspoon"?)
posted by raedyn at 9:40 AM on August 22, 2006

You don't need to be against drug laws to think that this is a stupid, axe-grinding post.

Yes, just like y2karls posts on the Iraq Civil War are all axe-grinding posts if you view them through the same lens of denial. Because he ballparked $20 this is all a wash? Ridiculous.
posted by prostyle at 9:41 AM on August 22, 2006

alright. first google hit for "marijuana legalization survey" is this study in california which shows 61% of california voters oppose making marijuana legal for anyone without a prescription.

more recent numbers show that only 41% of americans support legalizing marijuana. that means 59% oppose it. that's a majority.

doesn't matter that 41% is "a lot", it's still not enough.
posted by sergeant sandwich at 9:42 AM on August 22, 2006

israel bombs neighbor, mel gibson goes on drunken rant, ceiling cat appears.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 9:46 AM on August 22, 2006

This will end well.
posted by fixedgear at 9:46 AM on August 22, 2006

...doesn't matter that 41% is "a lot", it's still not enough.

Yes, and King George lost the popular vote by a clear margin. There are larger factors at play than random sampling.
posted by prostyle at 9:47 AM on August 22, 2006

There's a perfectly good reason not to do drugs, and that is because you could end up in jail. Isn't that reason enough to go without?

No. Why? Are we citizens supposed to just bend over and take whatever the federal government prescribes? Is that like Democracy 2.0?

But given the failure and corruption in the War on Drugs, there are many perfectly good reasons to abolish the Controlled Substances Act. Isn't that reason enough to decry the ridiculous 2 year punishment for $20 of pot?
posted by effwerd at 9:48 AM on August 22, 2006

Sigh. We've had this conversation before.

Though it might be the larger issue, the question in this particular case is not whether weed should be legal or not, the question is if the punishment fits the crime.

My opinion? No. A 17 year old kid selling a pathetic amount of weed should not have to do 2 years of time. It's excessive. He is not being punished (no one talks about rehabilitation anymore anyway) for the crime, he is being made into an example.
posted by slimepuppy at 9:49 AM on August 22, 2006

"The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and shit on HEMP."
posted by keswick at 9:49 AM on August 22, 2006

That a democracy works all the time is a fallacy. In fact the democracy itself does a poor job of protecting the minority, just look at pretty much all the civil and gay rights issues ever. Getting people to think rationally and objectively about something the government has spent large amounts of money in propoganda to do the exact opposite is hard, neigh impossible. We're not talking about rezoning a residential area or electing a councilman.
posted by geoff. at 9:49 AM on August 22, 2006 [1 favorite]

...only 41% of americans support legalizing marijuana. that means 59% oppose it. that's a majority.

doesn't matter that 41% is "a lot", it's still not enough.
posted by sergeant sandwich

Right. But I wonder what percentage of americans would think that this sentence is fair and believes that spending $100,000 of their tax money to incarcerate the kid is reasonable.
posted by leftcoastbob at 9:49 AM on August 22, 2006

41% favoring <> 59% not favoring
posted by owhydididoit at 9:50 AM on August 22, 2006

MetaFilter: I can pretend my black & white viewpoint belongs in the blue & white.
posted by Kickstart70 at 9:51 AM on August 22, 2006

There are larger factors at play than random sampling.

care to enlighten us, then? or maybe cite your "patently false in several states" claim?
posted by sergeant sandwich at 9:51 AM on August 22, 2006

israel bombs neighbor, mel gibson goes on drunken rant, ceiling cat appears.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 9:46 AM PST on August 22 [+] [!]

No, no, dude. That totally has a victim.
posted by Stauf at 9:51 AM on August 22, 2006

I don't understand these drug free zones. It's not like you can step over the line and expect to light one up consequence free.

My city has apparently been having a real crack problem of late. Someone had the bright idea of declaring "drug free" zones and putting up signs to let everyone know, but after some debate it was determined that this would probably cost a lot and have no positive effect.

Sometimes the system works!
posted by ODiV at 9:52 AM on August 22, 2006

more recent numbers show that only 41% of americans support legalizing marijuana. that means 59% oppose it. that's a majority.

Ah, democracy means mob rule not balance of power to avoid corruption and abuse. I get it. That explains a lot.
posted by effwerd at 9:53 AM on August 22, 2006 [1 favorite]

i think we all know that pot is illegal and that our drug laws are too extreme. it's basically like when people get caned for chewing gum in singapore or whatever they get caned for there. it's cruel and unusual and does nothing to help our country be a better place to live. also, although it sounds nice to fearful people, the 1,000 feet from a school thing doesn't really make sense. in urban areas pretty much everywhere is within 1,000 feet of a school (like my apartment). it's just an add-on that the system can use to give certain people extra punishment that has little or no bearing on whether actual kids were involved.
posted by snofoam at 9:54 AM on August 22, 2006

"What's this kid going to learn from 2 years that he isn't going to learn from 2 months?"

Some really awesome homemade lube recipes? Poor bastard, there are several schools near my house and now I'm wondering if I'm within 1,000 feet of one of them (not that I'm selling weed or anything). Is there anything else that's illegal within 1,000 feet of a school? This shit is just over the top in a scary sort of way. Why not make it 2,000ft or 10,000? Hell, just make it 100 miles and you can tack 2 years on to every drug sentence.
posted by MikeMc at 9:56 AM on August 22, 2006

i'll be so glad when nuclear winter comes.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 9:56 AM on August 22, 2006

it's just an add-on that the system can use to give certain people extra punishment

Like hate crimes?
posted by keswick at 9:56 AM on August 22, 2006

Your indescribably absurd comparison will carry more weight when Bush and company are actually indicted for their multiple felonies, sergeant sandwich. If we ever both fall into a crazy alternate reality where that actually happens I'll enjoy discussing the matter with you.

It's a pity that poor schmuck doesn't have the Attorney General of the United State to defend his crimes for him, but otherwise your comparison is totally, totally fair. How dare we suggest the president ought to obey the dictates of the constitution, while cravenly asserting that society devastating a teenager's life and costing the public $100K in incarceration costs to exact revenge for the sale of one joint is senseless? I guess we just don't understand logic.
posted by nanojath at 9:57 AM on August 22, 2006

Do you lie down like on every issue, guy?
posted by jon_kill at 9:18 AM PST

In a past post he did say he works in DC.
posted by rough ashlar at 9:58 AM on August 22, 2006

The one thing nobody's touched on yet is that mandatory minimum sentences are a gross violation of constitutional freedoms.

2 years for a single joint on the first offense? What kind of fucktard actually agrees with this line of punishment?
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 9:59 AM on August 22, 2006

the majority do want weed to be illegal.

True, but the majority aren't calling for such strict sentencing. The punishment should reflect the severity of the crime.
posted by yeti at 10:00 AM on August 22, 2006

Though it might be the larger issue, the question in this particular case is not whether weed should be legal or not, the question is if the punishment fits the crime.
posted by slimepuppy

How many people here actually think that the punishment fits the crime?

You can think that marijuana should be illegal; you can think that he should be sentenced because this is against the law; but deep down, how many of you actually, really and truly believe that justice is served by sending this kid to prison for two years?
posted by leftcoastbob at 10:00 AM on August 22, 2006

Democracy wasn't called "tyranny of the majority" for no reason. Also note that the USA is not a democracy, but rather a democratic republic, and it makes a difference.
posted by knave at 10:01 AM on August 22, 2006

i bet if you framed the question "what should be our top law enforcement priorities," marijuana wouldn't even be in the top 50.

legality isn't the issue so much as how you handle it when the law is broken. if i go over time at a parking meter, i'm breaking the law, but i'm not going to jail for two years. but if you sell somebody a tiny amount of a plant at the age of 17, that necessitates a two year stint of anal rape? come the fuck on.
posted by Hat Maui at 10:01 AM on August 22, 2006

er, what everybody said.
posted by Hat Maui at 10:05 AM on August 22, 2006

but pastabagel's right - this is a democracy

Actually, a constutional republic. But don't let the legal documents stop you.

and the majority do want weed to be illegal.

How do you know this?

we can't run around hollering about the rule of law and how bush should be indicted for ordering domestic phone taps (arguably, another action that is "harmless" yet illegal, depending on your point of view) and then expect a blind eye to be turned to this kid.

'Cept the bind eye wasn't turned on this kid. So....when does the "rule of law" get applied to Presidents/Congressmen?

more recent numbers show that only 41% of americans support legalizing marijuana. that means 59% oppose it. that's a majority.

Wow! 0% don't give a damn? Amazing! Because 100-41=59 By your math, no one has the opinion of 'whatever'.
posted by rough ashlar at 10:05 AM on August 22, 2006

This punishment is beyond ridiculously criminal itself. I'm astonished at how many people actually consider it understandable.
posted by acrobat at 10:05 AM on August 22, 2006

On majorities: isn't it an oft-quoted stat that a majority of Americans believe that discussions of biology that hinge on an understanding of the mechanisms of natural selection are evil?

Should that majority dictate education policy?

Simplistic minority-majority dichotomies propped up by democratic jingoism do not make the argument more clear. How many Americans supported Prohibition when it was proposed?

Putting a minor in prison for two years for trafficking minute quantities of a substance with less deleterious effects than alcohol is disproportionate punishment, whether you think soft drugs should be decriminalized or not. The poor lad is being used as a living poster for an "obey or suffer!" mandate from the DEA. He is being used by the state to forward an agenda I can't recall there having been a referendum about.

Happy in Canada,

Cheeseburger Brown
posted by CheeseburgerBrown at 10:07 AM on August 22, 2006

See when people don't have any intrinsic basis to say that marijuana should be illegal (e.g., numerous articles have shown it not to be a danger to public health on the lines of tobacco or alcohol, people don't rob liquor stores for money to buy it, it is non-addictive) they begin to rely on exogeneous reasons for keeping it illegal ("We are in a democracy and most people do not want it"). I do not believe anyone can say that soft drug decriminilization has been bad for the citizens. I do not see Amsterdam in a Darfur state of anarchy, nor London. It has almost got to the point where the argument is "I do not like the Blue Comedy Tour and it should be made illegal, only 21% of people enjoy it, ergo it must be illegal."
posted by geoff. at 10:07 AM on August 22, 2006

When I was younger, a police officer caught my friend and I parked on the side of a residential street, enjoying herbal refreshment. He did not see anything, but did smell it and told us he could search the vehicle. We told the truth, yes we were smoking marijuana, yes we are out here because we can't smoke in our homes.

He gave us a warning and let us go on our way. This is probably because it wasn't worth it to charge a suburban kid with no record for something that doesn't matter too much and doesn't hurt anyone.

I thank the maker that I live in Canada. Our drug laws certainly aren't perfect but I am so glad we do not have mandatory minimums and a more aggressive stance on prosecuting end users. There is, of course, a distinction between use and selling a $20 chunk to someone, but it is pretty small, IMO.
posted by utsutsu at 10:10 AM on August 22, 2006 [1 favorite]

rough ashlar: i got to that page via this one which addresses the drug policy alliance's wording on their press release:


First, I asked the Drug Policy Center for a breakdown of the results not just by agree vs. disagree, but also by the strength of agreement. (Many surveys, including this one, give people several options, and not just two.) Here's what that breakdown ends up being:

Strongly agree with legalization -- 23.5%.
Somewhat agree with legalization -- 17.4%.
Somewhat disagree with legalization -- 11.4%.
Strongly disagree with legalization -- 45.3%.

the agrees add up to 40.9 percent. the disagrees add up to 56.7 percent. i guess 2 percent don't care.

also, thanks to everyone for pointing out that the united states is a constitutional republic, because that's really shot down the whole "it's illegal, duh" argument.
posted by sergeant sandwich at 10:11 AM on August 22, 2006

They created an entire law enforcement apparatus around drug prohibition enforcement. They made special laws to keep it away from schools. They are obviously taking it seriously, reagrdless of whether they are wrong.

Google around and see if you can find any connection between the Bush family and drug importation. Use your best judgement as to which connections are real and which aren't; you're smart enough.

The government takes the drug trade seriously in exactly one sense: it generates serious money.
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:12 AM on August 22, 2006

Hrm. Another story about some kid getting busted for something he knew was illegal, and "OMG COPS are the ReAl TErrORiSTS they KILL people OMG11!!!!"

Is there more to this story that we're not seeing? Sometimes finding a news article on some guys blog isn't the best way to learn the facts about a case.
Ah, here's a bit more: "Lawrence was among 19 people arrested on drug-dealing charges as a result of an undercover operation from January to September 2004 at the former Taconic Lumber parking lot in Great Barrington.

The parking lot, located within 1,000 feet of the Great Barrington Co-operative Preschool and Searles/ Bryant Middle School, was a popular hangout for young adults and reportedly rife with drug activity at the time.

Most of those arrested were accused of selling cocaine, ecstasy and other "hard" drugs, but seven of the defendants -- including Lawrence -- were charged with selling small amounts of marijuana."

He was nailed in a sting. Sounds like he picked the wrong area. I'm looking for more info, but results for his name have been Googlecluttered by pro-pot & anti-prison websites.
And he sold the pot to an undercover police officer.
From everything I've read, it sounds like the guy knew what was going on and knew what he was doing. I also highly doubt that he'll serve the full 2 years in prison. Who knows, he might even just wind up with a fine and probation, or he'll be out in a few months.
posted by drstein at 10:12 AM on August 22, 2006

Baaa, baaa... i <3 drug laws.
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 10:13 AM on August 22, 2006

Man, armed with this snazzy new definition of democracy, I just solved the Iraq problem. The Shia majority should just make it law that all Sunnis must die. And hey, if it's made into law, those Sunnis should just bend over and take it, cuz, you know, it's the law regardless of what you might think of it.
posted by effwerd at 10:13 AM on August 22, 2006

No. Why? Are we citizens supposed to just bend over and take whatever the federal government prescribes? Is that like Democracy 2.0?

Um, didn't you get the memo?
posted by doctor_negative at 10:14 AM on August 22, 2006

oooh, look at me! im a freethinker-- i do drugs!

(two can play at that game, i_am_a_jedi. now go back to playing with your lightsaber.)
posted by keswick at 10:17 AM on August 22, 2006

Um, didn't you get the memo?

I probably smoked it without realizing.
posted by effwerd at 10:18 AM on August 22, 2006

pastabagel, I'm not entirely sure what your point is here. Yes, we all know that selling pot is illegal, and that you can go to jail for it. Nobody is arguing that. What we are arguing is that the kid was given a sentence that was wholly disporportionate to the amount of "damage" that he was doing to society.

In fact, many Americans (more then a third, last I checked) don't even think that he was doing something wrong.
posted by Afroblanco at 10:19 AM on August 22, 2006

In New Jersey, 96 percent of all those incarcerated under the [drug-free school zone] laws are African American or Latino. Similar disparities were found in other states such as Connecticut and Massachusetts. (according to this report.)

Partially this is because people of color live in more densely populated urban areas and are thus way more likely to be in a school zone.

Apparently even the deputy attorney general of New Jersey agrees with this: "There was a common sentiment shared by the members of the commission including prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, and cabinet members that a review of the school zone law needed to be a priority based on a belief that the law was neither fair nor effective. Based on the painstaking collection and review of data this belief was confirmed. It is gratifying that New Jersey’s report has spurred other states to examine the impact of their drug-free zone laws." (from here)
posted by snofoam at 10:23 AM on August 22, 2006

So, the usual arguments back and forth, but this one made me laugh:

Drug laws are primarily the work of corporations (and racists) such as Dow, who would much rather sell Americans and the rest of the world their synthetic ropes rather than hemp fibers.

So it's the vast polypropylene industry that's conspiring for drug laws? Yeah. 'cause they have to cover all the billions of dollars they sink into polymer research every year and hemp rope would put them right the hell out of business.

This is absolutely the funniest conspiracy theory I've ever read. The ROPE MAKERS. Scary!
posted by GuyZero at 10:25 AM on August 22, 2006

keswick, you're once again the frontrunner for the "thread jackass" award.

the prize? the satisfaction that comes with knowing that no one but no one can out-jackass you. congratulations.
posted by Hat Maui at 10:26 AM on August 22, 2006

This is absolutely the funniest conspiracy theory I've ever read.

Apparently you don't read much.
posted by prostyle at 10:28 AM on August 22, 2006

That actually sounded really negative, I didn't mean to give that impression GuyZero. I just meant that it's not something he dreamed up, it's been a popular theory for a while. I doesn't seem that unreasonable, faced with the situation we find ourselves in today with lobbyists and their control on the government. Same ol', same ol'.
posted by prostyle at 10:33 AM on August 22, 2006

A local kid, a very nice, hardworking young man in his early 20's recently killed 3 people and left an infant parentless after a night of drinking and an horrendous crash.

His sentence? One year in prison. I'm sure nearly everyone can describe similar incidents. At least part of the issue must be whether the punishment fits the crime.

Another issue is equal application of law. The same "crime," depending on the community and prosecutor can result in wildly different outcomes. Does anyone think that a politician's son would see even one day in jail?

Pot smokers are easy targets. They are the notches on the belts of many drug enforcement agents. They fill prisons at a ghastly cost to taxpayers and society. I suspect that there are probably 100,000,000 people alive today that, at one time in their life, did something similar. How many of them are now lawmakers and enforcers?

I didn't watch the video or read the story and don't care to. I just hope the kid is "rehabilitated" after his two years, and no longer a danger to us all. Maybe he'll grow up to be President.
posted by private_idaho at 10:40 AM on August 22, 2006 [1 favorite]

Well, ok, I can see how it was probably true back in the 30's, but today? Yes, I agree lobbyists are out of control, but it's insane to hang on to this particular canard. I mean, hemp is probably more expensive than nylon or polypropylene these days. Plus they don't rot. It's just so trivially dismissible.

Why not say it's because of lobbyists who are paid by bud growers in Mexico and BC to prevent free-market competition? Good parallels with prohibition and it works in the xenophobia angle too. Now that is the kind of conspiracy I can get behind. Back-woods BC bud growers put that kid in jail.
posted by GuyZero at 10:43 AM on August 22, 2006

and "OMG COPS are the ReAl TErrORiSTS they KILL people OMG11!!!!"

...the hell? Who are you trying to mock?
posted by Stauf at 10:45 AM on August 22, 2006

look. i think possession laws are stupid. i think mandatory minimum sentencing is stupid. i think any sentence greater than zero days is too much. but i'm also aware that i'm in the minority of public opinion here.

i fully support legalizing marijuana and most other drugs as well. but if i was caught with a pocketful of dope i'm pretty sure i wouldn't be shrieking about how unfair it was. alls i'm saying is that i'm pretty sure this guy knew what he was getting into. casting drug use as civil disobedience or something is fine, if you're willing to go to jail for your cause. civil disobedience isn't whining about it when they haul you away.

oh, and nanojath: i don't think there's anything absurd about the comparison i'm drawing. i'm saying that plenty of people on the other side are willing to turn the other cheek to illegal espionage because they find something appealing about it. i don't think we should do that either.

besides, the linked page made an equally (if not more) absurd comparison to a police brutality story. where's your passive-aggressive "confusion" about that?
posted by sergeant sandwich at 10:48 AM on August 22, 2006

Well, ok, I can see how it was probably true back in the 30's, but today?

If you see how it was true, why would it be false now? The drug laws we have stem from the ones created under those campaigns.

It's just so trivially dismissible.

Yes, on it's face today - I completely agree. But we aren't starting the conversation from scratch, we're starting it from the entrenched position that's been drilled into our heads for decades based on these campaigns started back then. When most people don't understand how or why something occured it's very difficult to have a reasoned debate on the issue.
posted by prostyle at 10:50 AM on August 22, 2006

I bet you that the vast majority of people would say that the kid got too harsh a sentance. Because most people have a fucking sense of scale.
posted by I Foody at 10:53 AM on August 22, 2006

Another story about some kid getting busted for something he knew was illegal, and "OMG COPS are the ReAl TErrORiSTS they KILL people OMG11!!!!"
posted by drstein at 10:12 AM PST on August 22

jesus you suck
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:55 AM on August 22, 2006

Yeah GuyZero. I wish I was a crank too. Unfortunately this is the world we're living in.

I'm not saying DuPont is entirely to blame, they're just one small well funded interest that's contributed to the war on drugs.

Check out The Genesis of Marijuana Prohibition from the excellent Virginia Law Review's inquiry into marijuana prohibition which I'm sure will provide more material than most will ever care to read.
posted by Matt Oneiros at 11:10 AM on August 22, 2006

How many people here actually think that the punishment fits the crime?

For selling pot, it's pretty dang excessive.

For price-gouging, it's not nearly enough.

From the video: "The only thing unusual about Mitchell is the colour of his skin..."

Uh, did anyone else pick up a vaguely racist "Won't someone please think of the white, burb-dwelling drug dealers" vibe off of that?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:11 AM on August 22, 2006

Alvy Ampersand - I think you missed the point of the reference. I think they were pointing out that the current policy is *really* bad for minorities.

Also - recently on digg, via youtube: LEAP
posted by daniel9223 at 11:17 AM on August 22, 2006

Similar drug-war-related article in the NYT. My favorite line:

The lingering question is whether America's drug problem would be worse today had the drug war, nearly 40 years in the making, never been waged. That may be unanswerable.

posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 11:18 AM on August 22, 2006

I think they were pointing out that the current policy is *really* bad for minorities.

How so? Where's the video for the black kid who got busted last week?

'Look out, Kaden, Braden, and Montana, draconic drug sentencing isn't just for your cleaning lady's son anymore! It could happen to YOU!'
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:22 AM on August 22, 2006

Also - recently on digg, via youtube: LEAP
posted by daniel9223 at 2:17 PM EST on August 22

Great link, hadn't seen it. Thanks daniel9223.
posted by patr1ck at 11:24 AM on August 22, 2006

Perhaps this was already said, but I have to make this comment:

Two years in prison is going to turn an otherwise normal, hard working kid into a criminal. He's going to get raped. He's going to get beat up. He's going to become even more pissed off at the world than he already is. He will have a criminal record that will make getting a higher-paying job almost impossible. He'll probably have to resort to selling drugs in the future to make rent.

What's the good that's going to come out of all this? Locking up a 'violent criminal' (remember, all drug crimes are 'violent crimes' to the cops) for selling pot to people who _wanted_ to smoke it? Congratulations drug laws, you just made another criminal.

Except this time, he probably _will_ be violent.
posted by triolus at 11:35 AM on August 22, 2006 [2 favorites]

If you see how it was true, why would it be false now?

Huh? I believe Dow probably paid money to lobbyists in the 30's to suppress hemp. I do not believe they are still paying lobbyists to press the same case.

If your point is that pot/hemp is still being suppressed today because of hysteria created in the 30's, sure, I suppose. The US managed to get over prohibition, racial profiling (mostly - I mean, no one is putting Muslims in internment camps en masse) and not letting women vote. Plus most people stopped going to church and the ones that kept going got a lot more militant. And I think there was something about desegregation between 1937 and now. So, maybe, on the other hand, pot really is bad and people aren't just hanging on to 70 year-old stereotypes. Americans seem to have gotten rid of most of their other negative prejudices.
posted by GuyZero at 11:37 AM on August 22, 2006

MikeMc asks, Is there anything else that's illegal within 1,000 feet of a school?

distribution of sample tobacco products and promotional
items . . . within 1,000 feet of schools (PDF) in Honolulu

placement of tobacco ads that are visible outside from public
property within 1,000 feet of schools. same link, also Honolulu

while on or within 300 feet of school property, . . . solicits another student to participate in the activities of or become a member of a criminal street gang . . . possesses a firearm (Texas)

it is illegal for a registered sex offender to be upon school grounds or within 500 feet of school grounds or areas where school activities involving students less than 18 years of age are taking place. (Idaho)

on public property within 500 feet of school property, alone or in concert with others, intentionally disrupts the conduct of classes or other school activities.
Definitions:
1. Emitting noise of an intensity that prevents or hinders classroom instruction.
2. Enticing or attempting to entice a student away from a class or other school activity that the student is required to attend.
3. Preventing or attempting to prevent a student from attending a class or other school activity that the student is required to attend. (Texas)

The answer seems to be yes, although some things are allowed closer.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 11:41 AM on August 22, 2006

Americans seem to have gotten rid of most of their other negative prejudices.

AHAH-AHAHAHAHAHAHA-HAHAHAHAHA. HAHAHAHAHA.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:44 AM on August 22, 2006

If your point is that pot/hemp is still being suppressed today because of hysteria created in the 30's, sure, I suppose.

You suppose?

The US managed to get over prohibition...

We wouldn't be here right now if that were the case.

...no one is putting Muslims in internment camps en masse

Gitmo doesn't exist?

Americans seem to have gotten rid of most of their other negative prejudices.

I couldn't disagree more, but that's neither here nor there.
posted by prostyle at 11:44 AM on August 22, 2006

Alvy - You asked if anyone caught the "racist" remark - I don't see anyone saying, "yes, I did."

I wonder if anyone caught the racist remark, "your cleaning lady's son."
posted by daniel9223 at 11:48 AM on August 22, 2006

Now you're just getting silly in the pursuit of making a point.

Gitmo exists, but no one has gone around and rounded up all the Muslims in America, taken their possessions and put them all in camps, like they did with Japanese Americans during WWII. Come on. And yes, there's still racism, but are you really saying that the average black American is treated no better today than in 1937? Really?

There was hysteria about pot in the 30's. There's hysteria about pot today. I interpreted your point as being that there's a causal relationship between the two. Also, you push the idea so strongly that I get the impression that you think the primary reason that people are anti-pot is because they've always been that way and people aren't very critical. Perhaps I misinterpret your position.

My point is that considering all the other hysterical horrible things that happened between the 30's and now that have stopped, maybe it takes more than historical hysteria to maintain the idea that pot is bad. Maybe pot is actually bad!

Now, IMO, soft drugs are mostly bad simply because they create a black market that's filled with criminals because they can't turn to the normal legal system for recourse in bad business dealings. But (to use the terms of a previous poster) most people don't care whether pot's problems are intrinsic (it's bad for you) or exogenous (dealers and users can cause violent crimes). Problems is problems and people want 'em to go away.

So, in summary, while I agree that the anti-pot movement has been going on for a long time, I do not think most people today who consider themselves anti-pot do so based on historical reasons.
posted by GuyZero at 12:07 PM on August 22, 2006

My grandmother used to say that hashhish caused the great depression. She was really pissed about it, too. When her husband died, his former bootlegger was one of the pallbearers.
posted by taosbat at 12:19 PM on August 22, 2006

What we are arguing is that the kid was given a sentence that was wholly disporportionate to the amount of "damage" that he was doing to society.

That's fine if that's your argument, but the punishment guidelines are not set based on the damage they did to society.

And the comment that insider trading has a victim? (a) Wrong. (b) Irrelevant. Insider trading has no victims except in the most abstract and hypothetical sense, and in any case, laws don't need victims to be constitutional.

I feel bad for gays, but come on, it is against the law...

A couple of people made similar nonsense arguments. First of all, being gay is not against the law, and laws that prohibit homosexual activity are unconstitutional. And the other things people mentioned are not illegal at all, and any colonial era laws are likely to be struck down anyway.

Furthermore, all of your brilliant fucking example are discrimination/equal protection/due process issues.

What we are talking about in this case is not a lifestyle choice - he was busted for selling pot, not for using it. Last time I checked, selling is commerce, and congress has exclusive right to regulate interstate commerce under the constitution. Furthermore, the Supreme Court during the new deal ruled time and again that basically any commerce is interstate commerce.

The law is constitutional. If the kid thinks the punishment is cruel and unusual, he can take that up to the Supreme Court, but others have before him and failed.

And to all those people arguing that this is undemocratic - my insider trading comment still stands. The same Congress that passed the laws making what Ken Lay did illegal passed these drug laws. They are democratically elected. If you say they aren't really, then that invalidates every law, not just your pet issues.

Do you lie down like on every issue, guy?
posted by jon_kill at 12:18 PM EST on August 22 [+] [!]

Yeah, I lie down on every issues. I got news for you. I am NEVER going to prison for a drug offense, so I don't care what the punishment is. If you plan to sell drugs, you should plan to go to jail on THEIR terms. They have the power and the presumption of moral authority, because they are our collective representatives,at least in theory.

If you want to question that moral authority in practice, that's a fine thing to do, but maintain the moral high ground when you do it. This guy wasn't fighting the system, he was trying to make some money in a private transaction.

Let me ask you something, was he planning to pay sales tax on that transaction, or income tax on the money he made? I guess not. So in addtion to breaking the drug laws, he's evading taxes. But when he gets busted, you all rush to his defense saying he's fighting the man, or some bullshit. He's not. He's trying to turn a quick buck.
posted by Pastabagel at 12:20 PM on August 22, 2006

Americans seem to have gotten rid of most of their other negative prejudices. - GuyZero

You can't be serious. Sure, (slow, painful) progress is being made on many fronts. But America is still a long way from ridding itself from prejudice.
posted by raedyn at 12:29 PM on August 22, 2006

So, the usual arguments back and forth, but this one made me laugh:

Drug laws are primarily the work of corporations (and racists) such as Dow, who would much rather sell Americans and the rest of the world their synthetic ropes rather than hemp fibers.

posted by GuyZero at 1:25 PM EST on August 22 [+] [!]

What's even more hilarious is that these companies invented and patented many of the more exotic street drugs

Maybe Merck, Dow, and Sandoz should track down ecstasy, meth, and LSD dealers and sue them for patent infringement....
posted by Pastabagel at 12:30 PM on August 22, 2006

I wonder if anyone caught the racist remark, "your cleaning lady's son."

How is that racist?

The vast majority of people busted for drugs come from lower income families, and while I don't know Mitchell Lawrence's economic background, it seems fishy to me that although "97% of all people arrested in drug-free zones aren't white," they make a PSA about one of the 3%. Hmm, I wonder who they are targeting with this video?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:32 PM on August 22, 2006

This is most telling:

I am NEVER going to prison for a drug offense, so I don't care what the punishment is.

It's all about you, baby.
posted by effwerd at 12:34 PM on August 22, 2006

Pastabagel, he's 17 years old. When you were 17 and mowed the neighbour's lawn, I hope you declared your 5 bucks to the government.
posted by Hildegarde at 12:35 PM on August 22, 2006

Minimum sentencing laws are ridiculous. Why the hell do we have a judiciary then?
When I was a kid I was in a car with a buddy of mine who had some dope on him. I myself had a punch blade and some brass knuckles. Long story as to what was going on at the time, but we were just waiting on a friend when the police asked us why we were there. Well we got arrested and charged. I was charged with weapons (just the brass knuckles - they gave me the punch blade back, makes oodles of sense, doesn’t it?) and marijuana usage. Now if I was an actual criminal (‘dangerous’ is redundant, I was dangerous at the time, just not criminal) they gave me my blade back and sent me on my way. So I went to court and the charges for carrying something used solely for inflicting blunt damage to someone is much less than the charge for smoking dope (again - oodles of sense). I don’t know how many “hey, you got caught smoking some shit huh?” type jokes I had to endure from cops, lawyers and assorted assholes. Really irritating because, although I believe in legalization, I don’t smoke marijuana at all. I guess a lot of people just roll over on those charges, but I was willing to take a blood test, etc. etc. So they dropped that one. So I “got off” with just the weapons charge. The prosecution was interested only in the dope charges and not at all in the weapons charge. They said they’d drop it to a lesser offense, make the fine less than the weapons charge, etc. etc. anything to get a conviction on dope. Except I was competely - and demonstrably - innocent of that. I didn’t even know my buddy had dope on him. And he had even said that. I was willing to admit to the weapons charge, because I was in fact carrying a weapon (several, matter of fact...one of which, the more dangerous one, they gave back). No one seemed to care about that, but the little bag of marijuana made them go nuts.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:35 PM on August 22, 2006

congress has exclusive right to regulate interstate commerce under the constitution.

You misspelled "intrastate".
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:38 PM on August 22, 2006

(and yeah, two years, no priors, pretty damned disproportionate)
posted by Smedleyman at 12:42 PM on August 22, 2006

I am NEVER going to prison for a drug offense, so I don't care what the punishment is. If you plan to sell drugs, you should plan to go to jail on THEIR terms.

Here's to hoping that Pastabagel's door is the one that gets kicked in by the drug warriors during a raid on the wrong address.
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 12:45 PM on August 22, 2006 [1 favorite]

My point is that considering all the other hysterical horrible things that happened between the 30's and now that have stopped, maybe it takes more than historical hysteria to maintain the idea that pot is bad. Maybe pot is actually bad!

I don't understand this in the slightest. What does the timescale of our culture have to do with a plant that's been utilized for thousands of years? It crosses time and borders and cultures, so judging it by the metric of your perspective on American societal change is bizarre, at best.

Now, IMO, soft drugs are mostly bad simply because they create a black market that's filled with criminals because they can't turn to the normal legal system for recourse in bad business dealings.

Soft drugs create the black market? What are you talking about? Again, these plants existed long before we did. The black market is the direct result of these draconian enforcements that bring us here today, it doesn't exist in a vacuum.

But (to use the terms of a previous poster) most people don't care whether pot's problems are intrinsic (it's bad for you) or exogenous (dealers and users can cause violent crimes). Problems is problems and people want 'em to go away.

Yes, and these "problems" are not going to be solved through ignorant, draconian legislation.

...you push the idea so strongly that I get the impression that you think the primary reason that people are anti-pot is because they've always been that way and people aren't very critical.

True. People are not critical when they are comfortable and have nothing to be concerned with except demonization. That's the easy part.

I do not think most people today who consider themselves anti-pot do so based on historical reasons.

Of course they don't, their mental faculties are not programmed with the knowledge that they should see the campaign in that context. That doesn't mean they aren't ignorant. They can't provide any rational justifications for their prejudice. It's called a "War on Some Drugs" for a reason.
posted by prostyle at 12:47 PM on August 22, 2006

I do not think most people today who consider themselves anti-pot do so based on historical reasons.

I'd argue that they are anti-pot based on "the government says so, so it must be true.". Pot is a Schedule 1 drug, which according to the government means:

(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

Both of these statements are patently false.

Combine that with mandatory minimums, which many of us consider to be unconstitutional as they are both cruel and unusual and remarkably racist in application.
posted by kableh at 1:02 PM on August 22, 2006

Doesn't make it right but we all know this is the exception rather than the rule elsewise we wouldn't see it on the intertubes or be discussing it here. My comment is prompted by all the "thank god I'm in Canada comments" above. In my youth I was caught with small amounts of pot by the authorities more than once but was never arrested or even cited. In each case we were forced to throw it into the wind or it was confiscated and this was in one of those hellishly repressive southern red states.
posted by Carbolic at 1:07 PM on August 22, 2006

The law can be wrong, and is. And if you want people to take your opinion seriously, curse less when you express it man.

Thanks for taking issue with the presentation of the argument, rather than the argument itself. Look, you fight the law in three ways - (1) violence; (2) non-violent disobedience; (3) change the law within the system.

The 17 year old in question was doing none of the above, and I dare say most of the comments here don't fit into these categories either. You want to fight the system violently? I think we all know you lose. Civil disobedience to change the drug trafficking laws? That's a stretch. Possession and use is one thing, trafficking is another matter altogether. But if you want to argue for the legalization of marijuana, you need to be prepared to parse out how it is different than any other drug that is also illegal. Because failing to do so means that you are advocationg the legalization of crack and heroin. And again, you'll lose.

And you need to be able to accept the fact that if it's illegal for tobacco companies to sell cigarettes to minors, it should also be illegal for drug dealers to do the same.

Drug laws are primarily the work of corporations (and racists) such as Dow, who would much rather sell Americans and the rest of the world their synthetic ropes rather than hemp fibers. (Amongst other vested interests that have bought and sold our government over and over again.)

There is no sophistication in arguing insane conspiracy theories. Please don't preach to me about racist corporations owning the govt. blah blah. Plently of drug dealers are racists, homophobes, and misogynists too. Some of them buy off cops and bribe officials. But they collectively have no clout in government because they pay no taxes.

Also, I'm not naive enough to think that legalized marijuana would achieve some magical status in society. If marijuana is legal, you're going to be buying it from Philip Morris and RJR and whoever makes cigarettes now.

I f youare willing to accept that these racist corporations are going to make a fortune in a legal-drug regime, then maybe you can see past your own prejudices for a moment and realize that the best argument for legalizing drugs is that a $60 billion industry becomes subject to taxation.
posted by Pastabagel at 1:09 PM on August 22, 2006

This is a depressing case - it reminds me that drug law will probably never see as much progress in our lifetime as other social issues like homosexual rights, etc. While drug law causes millions of people to rot in jail, the public perception is that they're there because they wanted to get high. It's cast as a recreation, not a fundamental rights issue.

It's like if the government imposed a 10 year minimum sentence on riding waterslides. Yes, it's a stupid law, and many children will end up in the slammer as a result; but who is going to knowingly risk 10 years in the can for the right to waterslide?

For the same reason, I don't see pro-marijuana activists ever engendering the same sort of tenacity and self-sacrifice that other social issues have occasioned. Black people were willing to protest and get thrown in jail because they were arguing for basic human rights, and without them their quality of life was terrible. This is not so with marijuana. I could easily have gone my entire life without doing bonghits and I would probably not be that much poorer for it.
posted by kfx at 1:13 PM on August 22, 2006

I don't understand this in the slightest. What does the timescale of our culture have to do with a plant that's been utilized for thousands of years? It crosses time and borders and cultures, so judging it by the metric of your perspective on American societal change is bizarre, at best.

I believe this whole thing started when I said that I thought that implicating Dow in the war on drugs because it was good for their rope business was crazy talk. I was not the one who started with lobbyists in the 30's. My position now, as then, is that that is a crazy conspiracy theory. Companies lobby for their vested interests all the time, but it takes more than corporate lobbying to start a "war".

Soft drugs create the black market?

No. That was poorly phrased. My real point was that most people don't care about the difference between drugs and drug-related crime & violence. Which, in truth, I agree is naive.
posted by GuyZero at 1:13 PM on August 22, 2006

Let me ask you something, was he planning to pay sales tax on that transaction, or income tax on the money he made? I guess not. So in addtion to breaking the drug laws, he's evading taxes. But when he gets busted, you all rush to his defense saying he's fighting the man, or some bullshit. He's not. He's trying to turn a quick buck.
posted by Pastabagel at 2:20 PM CST on August 22 [+] [!] [↑]

Too bad he wasn't in Nevada. Otherwise the government could have tacked on failure to pay an annual registration fee.

Damn hippies and their greed.
posted by Leather McWhip at 1:16 PM on August 22, 2006

There is no sophistication in arguing insane conspiracy theories. Please don't preach to me about racist corporations owning the govt. blah blah. Plently of drug dealers are racists, homophobes, and misogynists too. Some of them buy off cops and bribe officials. But they collectively have no clout in government because they pay no taxes.

Most of the "conspiracy theories" behind the prohibtion of marijuana and other drugs in the early 20th century comes from "The Emporer Wears No Clothes", online here. Is it incorrect? Probably. Insane? Please. Lobbyists buy laws everyday, whether its the RIAA or Indian casino interests.

You're really missing the point of the arguement, not that the OP made it eloquently. See the above link for a much better interpretation.
posted by kableh at 1:16 PM on August 22, 2006

Companies lobby for their vested interests all the time, but it takes more than corporate lobbying to start a "war".

The "War On Drugs" didn't start in earnest until the 60s. Marijuana prohibition started much earlier, and was the subject of the OPs post. Don't conflate the two.
posted by kableh at 1:17 PM on August 22, 2006

Pastabagel you again attack all the issues around marijuana and don't attack the non-linearity of the punishment to the crime or the fact that he shouldn't be going to jail for this anyway. One can make the case against intoxication itself (a la Neitzsche in regards to alcohol), but you have yet to do so. Then the question is do we want impose criminal penalties for those whose personal moral reasoning does not align with ours? Which contradicts "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness" section of our constitution.

But since you know, you don't smoke it doesn't really matter does it? Kind of like I don't care if women have the right to vote because I've got news for you: I am a man!
posted by geoff. at 1:18 PM on August 22, 2006

hitler
posted by Kifer85 at 1:20 PM on August 22, 2006 [2 favorites]

That's fine if that's your argument, but the punishment guidelines are not set based on the damage they did to society.

Please tell me that you see this as a problem.
posted by Afroblanco at 1:25 PM on August 22, 2006

It also needs to be added that not only is the youth in question 17, but he was selling a dub. For those of you like "pastabagel" who clearly have no conception of marijuana, how it is sold, etc., that is generally the smallest amount of weed one can buy on the street unless they have a good relationship with their dealer (in which case you may be able to buy half of that, a dime bag, and even rarer at least in my experience a nickel bag).

My point is, he wasn't selling ounces of weed or even pounds. He was selling a single bag, so it is best to not compare him to big-time drug dealers.
posted by nonmerci at 1:26 PM on August 22, 2006

I got news for you. I am NEVER going to prison for a drug offense, so I don't care what the punishment is.

That is so incredibly selfish and irresponsible. It's part of your responsibility as a citizen to care about what the State does in your name.

And cops NEVER "find" drugs on people who weren't holding them, or plant quantities of drugs in houses that they raid by mistake. So only guilty people are ever punished, while innocent bagels always go unpunished. What are you smoking?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 1:35 PM on August 22, 2006

I could easily have gone my entire life without doing bonghits and I would probably not be that much poorer for it. - kfx

Unless you've got epilepsy or severe pain and/or persistent muscle spasms from multiple sclerosis, a spinal cord injury or disease, severe arthritis, cachexia, anorexia, severe nausea from cancer & cancer drugs or HIV/AIDS & the drugs that treat it, etc. If you fall into one of these groups (all of whom are able to obtain licences for medicinal use of merijuana in Canada) the use of marijuana can poitively impact their quality of life.

There is also research on Alzhiemers Parkinsons Glaucoma and other diseases that show some promise for marijuana as a treatment. Nothing conclusive at this point, AFAIK.

I don't see pro-marijuana activists ever engendering the same sort of tenacity and self-sacrifice that other social issues have occasioned. Black people were [...] arguing for basic human rights, and without them their quality of life was terrible. This is not so with marijuana.

The people I mention above are generally quite sick and very busy managing their illnesses and trying to stay alive / achieve an acceptable quality of life. Certainly there a lot of users that don't fall into any of these categories, but there are a number of people that could benefit from use of this substance and their quality of life is negatively impacted by the 'War on Drugs'.

You're essentially saying "it doesn't affect me" and turning a blind eye to those it does affect. That's your choice. But don't assume just because it's okay for you that means it's okay for everyone.
posted by raedyn at 1:36 PM on August 22, 2006

Pastabagel, what exactly is the point you are arguing? Are you saying that a 2 year sentence for selling a dime bag to an under cover cop is a reasonable punishment? For 17 year old with no record? So far you've been reiterating that it's against the law. No one is debating you on that, people are just saying that the law is unjust, especially in this particular application.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 1:38 PM on August 22, 2006

where's your passive-aggressive "confusion" about that?

I object to this, my confusion is strictly aggressive.

But I don't know why I bother. Hardly any mainstream politicians will touch drug law reform with a ten foot pole and good luck with the ones who will. The closest thing to a liberal politician we've had in the white house in the last 25 years wasn't ready to admit to going any further than "not inhaling" (shit, Newt Gingrich is less square than that) and his first surgeon general got shitcanned for suggesting that we think about marijuana legalization. No conversation could be more pointlessly theoretical.
posted by nanojath at 1:41 PM on August 22, 2006

A couple of people made similar nonsense arguments. First of all, being gay is not against the law, and laws that prohibit homosexual activity are unconstitutional.

Pastabagel, you know how that happened? A minority of people realized that some laws were bullshit and needed to be changed, and they didn't pipe down until the changes wentt into effect. And if they all shut up about it tomorrow, it would go right back to the way things were before. It's just another one of those cases where the majority's heads are so far up their asses that they can't see who they're stepping on.
posted by hermitosis at 1:42 PM on August 22, 2006

Pastabagel you again attack all the issues around marijuana and don't attack the non-linearity of the punishment to the crime or the fact that he shouldn't be going to jail for this anyway. One can make the case against intoxication itself (a la Neitzsche in regards to alcohol), but you have yet to do so. Then the question is do we want impose criminal penalties for those whose personal moral reasoning does not align with ours? Which contradicts "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness" section of our constitution.

That isn't in the Constitution, it's in the Declaration of Independence. But whatever.

Is the argument here that the punishment is too severe, or that marijuana should be legal? Because not only does the OP not make that clear, the linked blog doesn't either. The punishment issue if simple - no it isn't too severe. The substance is banned. He shouldn't even have it, let alone be selling it. And considering that in Mass. you could spend 6 months in jail for selling alcohol to a minor, 2 years for selling a banned substance near a school doesn't strike me as too severe.

As to the legalization, I refer to my point earlier. Everyone lobbies. The ACLU lobbies. Drug legalization groups lobby. So what? The law doesn't expire every year and get passed anew, it's already on the books. So you have to argue (a) that the previous reasons for banning it are factually and morally wrong; and (b) there would be some benefit to legalizing it and not legalizing the other drugs. But keep in mind that if you only legalize marijuana, you do nothing about the drug war - all that apparatus stays in place to restrict the flow of the other drugs.

Personally, I'm not against legalizing it. It's not a big deal for me one way or the other because unlike the juvenile arguments about gender and race, drug use is indisputably a choice. But I could see legalizaing all of them and taxing them to an insane degree. People are going to get the stuff anyway I suppose, even if it means putting themselves in danger of becoming a victim of a crime or going to prison, at least this way they get it safely, the quality is controlled, etc.

Furthermore, the interdiction apparatus could be dismantled and the money spent on something else, like rehab.

But this kid going to prison? I see nothing wrong with that. Don't downward comparison me with how murders and rapists got less. They should have gotten more. This kid ruined his own life and that of his family because he didn't think things through. He has two years to learn the difference between trying to fight the system and trying to beat the system.
posted by Pastabagel at 1:50 PM on August 22, 2006

So in addtion to breaking the drug laws, he's evading taxes.
posted by Pastabagel

Oh, for the love of pete. This kid, evading taxes on $20 of weed, is obviously one of our most fervent criminal masterminds. Tax evasion! What's next, fucking jaywalking?!
posted by NationalKato at 1:54 PM on August 22, 2006

What we are talking about in this case is not a lifestyle choice - he was busted for selling pot, not for using it.

Possession and use is one thing, trafficking is another matter altogether.

This kid isn't a dealer and he's certainly not a trafficker. He was a dumb punk hard up for cash.

In general, traffickers are the ones who buy lots of cell phones, travel on commercial airlines a lot and have about 10 to 20 runners driving rental cars around the country, loaded or empty. Dealers, real dealers, are the ones who meet and greet the loaded runners, or are at least the beneficiaries of what the runners deliver. Below the dealer are a mix of other dealers and rich kids who support their habit by buying low and selling high. This kid is about six degrees of separation away from "dealer" status.

And you need to be able to accept the fact that if it's illegal for tobacco companies to sell cigarettes to minors, it should also be illegal for drug dealers to do the same.

Where did this come from? He sold it to an undercover cop. Was the cop a minor? And who is arguing that minors should have free access to controlled substances?

He has two years to learn the difference between trying to fight the system and trying to beat the system.

I think you are the only one in the thread characterizing this kid's street slangin as "fighting the system."
posted by effwerd at 1:59 PM on August 22, 2006

[expletive deleted] -- There a difference between "selling a dime bag to an under cover cop" and selling a dime bag to an under cover cop in a school zone. In this case, the difference amounted to an extra couple years.

Even the Drug Policy Alliance uses this oops-gee-golly-we-accidentally-forgot-to-mention-the-part-that-doesn't-fit-perfectly when they say, "It takes two things: A bad law. And a cruel prosecutor."

No! That's a lie. They know it and any person with an elementary-school education knows it! That it's a bad law is (obviously) arguable. That the prosecutor is cruel is likely untrue, but still arguable. They conveniently and completely forgot to mention the single most important component, and the one component that's not in dispute: the guy that chose to ignore the law and deal drugs in a school zone!

And then, after such grossly obvious attempts to force a situation to reflect their position as this, the reform proponents seem truly amazed when nobody (except other potheads, of course) takes them or their position seriously?

Bottom line: Mitchell Lawrence knew the job was risky when he took it. He gambled and lost. Tough shit for Mitchell.
posted by CodeBaloo at 2:20 PM on August 22, 2006

How is everybody overlooking the upside? This kid is 17, he's got his whole life ahead of him, and he's getting a $100,000 taxpayer-paid trip to jail for two years after having done the absolute literal least he could do to get there! Sure, he's fucked as far as college is concerned, and repeatedly fucked as far as his ass is concerned, and will likely emerge with no demonstrable skills aside from folding laundry and dealing more grass, but we're giving him two things that college can't provide. 1) Streed cred, and 2) a huge network of higher-level dealers and potential customers!

Actually, college can easily provide the second of those, but not the street cred!

Of all the people discussing constitutionality and majorities determining the laws of our land and what not, nobody has mentioned that this kid actually has no say in those laws which he clearly disagrees with himself. He's seventeen, and tried as an adult, but without the rights to vote on those laws for which he is tried. Anyway...

My favorite political moment of my time: Sam Donaldson interviewing Bill Bradley in the 2000 primaries.

Sam: Did you ever smoke marijuana back in the 60's?
Bill: Yes. Didn't you, Sam?
Sam: Well, yes.

(I'm paraphrasing)
posted by Navelgazer at 2:39 PM on August 22, 2006

Oh, and Pastabagel, I don't smoke grass either, because it just isn't my thing, and I tend to poison myself with tobacco and alcohol instead, which hurt me much, much more. Still, I can see the pot smoking is at the very least a basic rights issue, which shouldn't be at the whim of people who just don't do it themselves, and so are cool with others going to jail for it. But if that's not enough, hopefully the fact that an ungodly amount of your tax dollars are going to keep these non-violent offenders locked up can give you pause.
posted by Navelgazer at 2:42 PM on August 22, 2006

CodeBaloo, how can disregard the welfare of this kid so callously? He's going to spend two years in prison, and he's likely going to spend those two years being raped and beaten. How is that justice? What fucked up world do you live in where this punishment is proportional or in any way excusable? He's 17. He's a dumb kid, and you know what? He's probably not a dealer. He probably just sold some of his own stash when the narc asked for a hookup.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 2:57 PM on August 22, 2006

but pastabagel's right - this is a democracy, and the majority do want weed to be illegal.
No, this isn't a democracy, this is a constitutional republic. The 'majority' has no legislative authority, nor does the majority have any right to vote away my rights. The majority has no authority to dictate to adults what chemicals they can use. Or, as I usually put it: It's my fucking body.

Your argument inherently claims that people in this country do not own their bodies. There is no way around that.

we can't run around hollering about the rule of law and how bush should be indicted for ordering domestic phone taps (arguably, another action that is "harmless" yet illegal, depending on your point of view) and then expect a blind eye to be turned to this kid.

I can. Drug laws are unconstitutional. Laws preventing domestic spying are not.
posted by spaltavian at 3:02 PM on August 22, 2006

“The punishment issue if simple - no it isn't too severe.”

Why do big government neo-liberals insist on spending money to imprison people for chickenshit like this? Instead of just fining him and actually recouping the money for the police time, we shove him into prison where we have to pay to feed and house him for two years. Why is the answer always more jails, more laws, more government instead of less? The judge (who we paid to sit there and do essentially nothing because of the manditory sentence) could have taken care of this whole matter in 10 minutes. It is the law, but it is a poor law and it forces people to give the prison system money arbitrarily.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:27 PM on August 22, 2006

Instead of just fining him...

Presumably the slipperly-slope counter-argument to this one is that it's essentially a free pass for wealthy people to break the law.
posted by GuyZero at 3:32 PM on August 22, 2006