55 years for selling mary jane!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by shazeep

agreed, but this may ignore how parties--i mean people, not political--are often manipulated into their positions, unawares, at the very least. And political, too, as those parties are ostensibly catering to their constituent's will--even though this is not true, practically speaking, which should be a clue to its value. I see a similar reflection in trying to quote Scripture to prove a point, or at least most points. This doesn't mean that one is wrong, in doing this, but possibly starting from a rigid premise, or an exclusive one. I think the reality--as opposed to the facts--lie somewhere in the middle here, as with most other things.

That might well be true. In this case, there was a huge drug problem, both parties worked together to get something done. Harsh? Probably so, but they did the best they could to get the drugs off the street.

We can't discuss this topic without discussing the people involved in the legislation. Rangel was trying to do what he thought was best for his community. I have to give him that. And we were stricter in the 80's with the law, so it is just a given that the penalties were steep.

Legislating morality is a whole separate topic. As with any of our laws, John Adams had it right - “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Ask Charles Rangel. He helped get the legislation passed, Jermyn. Go to your SOURCE.

yes, and then realize that, when you have "sourced" it, you still most likely have no clue as to where it really originated, and will not be provided one absent some prescient insight.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by shazeep

yes, and then realize that, when you have "sourced" it, you still most likely have no clue as to where it really originated, and will not be provided one absent some prescient insight.

One pretty solid clue would come from anyone sitting on the House Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control. Don't ya think?

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

That might well be true. In this case, there was a huge drug problem, both parties worked together to get something done. Harsh? Probably so, but they did the best they could to get the drugs off the street.

We can't discuss this topic without discussing the people involved in the legislation. Rangel was trying to do what he thought was best for his community. I have to give him that. And we were stricter in the 80's with the law, so it is just a given that the penalties were steep.

Legislating morality is a whole separate topic. As with any of our laws, John Adams had it right - “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

and yet we now have more drugs, more potent, and cheaper than before. I think the "war on drugs" did exactly what some unseen master had in mind. Rangel--whom i'm assuming is a politician--has entered the belly of the beast, imo, and so his motivations are lost to me.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

One pretty solid clue would come from anyone sitting on the House Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control. Don't ya think?

well, that is the point of the committee/imprimatur, to lend legitimacy, and act as a source, but nope, i think they are prolly as surprised as any the results of their oh-so-altruistic policies. That, or they are intentionally evil. As they keep manufacturing justifications for the failed policies, it might just be easier to call them ignorant. Surely some mean well. They are, strangely, the ones that scare me the most, as they are the most naive of the process.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by shazeep

and yet we now have more drugs, more potent, and cheaper than before. I think the "war on drugs" did exactly what some unseen master had in mind. Rangel--whom i'm assuming is a politician--has entered the belly of the beast, imo, and so his motivations are lost to me.

An immoral person or society needs God. We do need laws. Moses gave out laws. But laws don't correct an immoral person or society. I feel that Rangel did what he thought he could to help his community. I didn't know that until I had received the article by Jason Riley, who I like very well. He is always very factual. I am going to purchase his book, Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by shazeep

well, that is the point of the committee/imprimatur, to lend legitimacy, and act as a source, but nope, i think they are prolly as surprised as any the results of their oh-so-altruistic policies. That, or they are intentionally evil. As they keep manufacturing justifications for the failed policies, it might just be easier to call them ignorant. Surely some mean well. They are, strangely, the ones that scare me the most, as they are the most naive of the process.

Probably ignorant that God is the only person who can set a man/woman free. The only help we can give is to take the person to the source, Jesus Christ. Even then the old adage speaks - "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." Hence, we write more laws.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

An immoral person or society needs God. We do need laws. Moses gave out laws. But laws don't correct an immoral person or society. I feel that Rangel did what he thought he could to help his community. I didn't know that until I had received the article by Jason Riley, who I like very well. He is always very factual. I am going to purchase his book, Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed.

well, i might argue that we are freed from the law, and immoral people won't follow it anyway, as you say, so what is the point of laws, again? They are ostensibly to protect others, right? So, i am more firmly anarchist by the year, as per my grasp of 1Sam8. I'm sure Rangel most likely did what he thought best--don't know if he's been to the Grove or not--and has generated many feel-good quotes on the matter, that may be sourced, etc. Too bad he has not yet grasped what many children (and satan) know; that what you resist persists. Fighting what you dislike will never = manifesting what you like. Laws, despite their purported intent, are in fact tools of oppression of the good, and not the evil, unfortunately. Sometimes--just often enough--the evil get ensnared, to provide sources, and factoids, imo.
love the book title! lol

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by shazeep

and yet we now have more drugs, more potent, and cheaper than before. I think the "war on drugs" did exactly what some unseen master had in mind. Rangel--whom i'm assuming is a politician--has entered the belly of the beast, imo, and so his motivations are lost to me.

shaz - that is not true. From first-hand experience, the DEA, as well as other police agencies, have done a remarkable job on illegal drug use over the last 10 years.

[Fionn mac Cumh]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Would you want to see all drugs legalized or just marijuana?

Personally, I am thinking marijuana is not nearly as harmful as the other drugs and since it has medicinal properties, I really don't see the logic behind keeping it illegal.

I wanna see all drugs legalize. Take the money that is spent on the fake war on drugs and put that toward rehab and treatment.