DescentBB

The problem with drugs is the extreme addictive nature. I think the reason why many are illegal is that there is a loss of control by the individual and the state has stepped in as nanny. I realize that there are many conspiracy theories regarding control and the state exploiting illegality to make money; but in the end these substances aren't exactly harmless.

Alcohol- just as bad if not worse in some cases. Why isn't it illegal as well?

If it were up to me, people can do whatever they want with drugs in their own homes SO LONG as they do not adversely affect MY LIFE or the lives of others. What you do to yourself is your problem- not mine, but don't put me in the grave or in a wheelchair because you were drunk or high.

Drugs legal? Sure. But kill or maim someone while under the influence? The DEATH PENALTY should apply to those that harm others in this way.

have you ever listened to the side effect of many of the Legal drugs on the Market?? and what about the side effects from the Illegal drugs? Most that have not had studies done.

also, sure they are safe in your own home. only problem is THEY DONT STAY THERE. people use them lose their common sense because the drug effect their reasoning and they hit the streets.

There is hope for you yet TB…

You can thank Joe Biden, the drug warrior.

ccb056 wrote:You can thank Joe Biden, the drug warrior.

Ya he taught his daughter well

Apply the death penalty to all illegal drugs.
It'll be one drug free country in one week.

p.s. executions on the spot, no government tax money for prisons.

p.p.s. with machetes.

SilverFJ wrote:Apply the death penalty to all illegal drugs.
It'll be one drug free country in one week.

p.s. executions on the spot, no government tax money for prisons.

p.p.s. with machetes.

Take it easy.

I agree with the point, but it shouldn't be taken to an extreme. The point is that punishment for crimes done while under the influence should be much stiffer than penalties for crime done while you're sober. People need to take responsibility for the fact that they're choosing to put themselves in a state of impaired judgement.

A death penalty to the drug pusher yes. Or better yet a life sentence in Gitmo. Might as well use all that soon to be empty space eh? To the user a mandatory rehab program. Once the pushers are gone, no more users.

No, TB's solution may satisfy the \"deterrent\" aspect of the law, but it fails to satisfy the \"justice\" aspect because it assigns moral blame based on moral luck. Consider two drunk drivers driving down the same road. When one drove down the road, there was a person standing in the middle of the road whom he hit, but, when the other drove down the road, there was no one standing in it. They both chose to do the same thing--drive drunk--but due to circumstances outside of their control, namely whether someone was standing in the street, one was penalized more heavily than the other. The problem here is that their moral blame isn't proportional to what they chose to do.

What we need to do instead is to sufficiently punish the negligence in itself. If you think that drinking and driving is criminally negligent, then make that illegal (and it is). If you find that there is a difference between the moral blame for a drunk driver who hits a person while driving and the moral blame for drinking and driving, then where does this difference come from?

To apply this to this topic, if you think that doing some drugs is criminally negligent in and of itself (and you could definitely make this case against some drugs), then make that illegal in and of itself. In this case, whether you do something illegal under the influence of a drug wouldn't be completely involuntary, so you wouldn't be completely off the hook. But you certainly couldn't be *more* morally blameworthy than the moral blameworthiness of doing a dangerous drug + whatever illegal thing you did under its influence.

TB, I would be curious if you would be willing to embrace your idea equally in the opposite case: if someone is shown to statistically be *less* likely to commit a crime when under a drug's influence, then would you argue that they should have a reduced sentence if they commit a crime under its influence?

This is very specific. If you kill or maim someone because you're drunk or high, you should pay the ultimate price. Drunk and hit a tree? Lucky you. You didn't kill someone- but the penalty should be high. You can't drive or operate a vehicle for the rest of your life.

snoopy wrote:

SilverFJ wrote:Apply the death penalty to all illegal drugs.
It'll be one drug free country in one week.

p.s. executions on the spot, no government tax money for prisons.

p.p.s. with machetes.

Take it easy.

I agree with the point, but it shouldn't be taken to an extreme. The point is that punishment for crimes done while under the influence should be much stiffer than penalties for crime done while you're sober. People need to take responsibility for the fact that they're choosing to put themselves in a state of impaired judgement.

hyperbole
Pronunciation:\\hī-ˈpər-bə-(ˌ)lē\\
Function:noun
Etymology:Latin, from Greek hyperbolē excess, hyperbole, hyperbola, from hyperballein to exceed, from hyper- + ballein to throw — more at devil
Date:15th century
: extravagant exaggeration (as “mile-high ice-cream cones”

dp

...wait, there's no such thing as a mile high ice cream cone?!? aww man... oh wait, you're foolin me right? April fools? com'on FJ, you wouldn't jerk me around on this would you???



What about the diabetic that suffers low blood sugar? They act and appear drunk. We've had diabetics arrested in the past for this very thing. (and they nearly died). You can get a bumper sticker now if you're diabetic to let cops know of your condition. But it seems to me the bottom line of your argument is that you kill someone. (involuntary manslaughter and reckless endangerment.) What about cell phone usage? Have you any idea how many accidents are now caused because of those things? More than half the people that are caught on camera running red lights here have their head glued to one or their diggin around their floor board looking for something.

What did you see on the news to make you go off like this? Or are you just that lop-sided in your reasoning?

Jeff,

You have a point. In a sense, the punishment should be equal, no matter what mental condition you were in.

To counter, voluntarily taking steps to increase your chances of committing a crime should be considered at least some level of pre-meditation. Also, committing crime B because you were already committing crime A should have a multiplicative effect on the sentence.

Example 1: You get drunk & beat your wife. Should the sentence be stronger, the same, or weaker than beating your wife while sober? If you're a mean drunk, and know it, you knowing took steps that would increase the likelihood that you'd abuse your wife. I'd give a stiffer penalty, because I'd consider the act of getting drunk an act of premeditation. Note, only one crime is involved, but the legal intake of a substance encouraged you to do it.

Example 2: You get drunk, drive home, and hit someone on the way. You committed 2 crimes. First, you drove drunk. Second, you committed vehicular manslaughter. I think that the fact that you committed the second crime as a result of committing the first should serve to yield a punishment strong than the sum of the two punishments taken separately. If you didn't hit someone, and got away with driving drunk, then you're lucky and have gotten away with less than what would be just.

I don’t advocate increased penalties under the influence, but I understand the logic.

A crime is a crime, same goes for Hate Crimes.

snoopy wrote:To counter, voluntarily taking steps to increase your chances of committing a crime should be considered at least some level of pre-meditation.

I disagree--calling it "criminal negligence" seems much more appropriate here. I don't see how it could be premeditation unless you're willing to get highly metaphorical with the term.

snoopy wrote:Also, committing crime B because you were already committing crime A should have a multiplicative effect on the sentence.

The multiplicative sentence though is probably intended more for a deterrant or for some other reason than having anything to do with trying to address multiplicative moral blame. At least, offhand, I can't think of any reason why you would have more moral blame for doing two bad things simultaneously than doing them at two different times. In fact, I think of a way to argue the opposite.

snoopy wrote:If you didn't hit someone, and got away with driving drunk, then you're lucky and have gotten away with less than what would be just.

I don't want to introduce "getting away" though, since this might confuse things later on. This is indeed a kind of luck, but it doesn't demonstrate moral luck, since everyone would still agree that a person that gets away is still morally blameworthy. We can't expect laws to serve justice when people get away with crimes!

snoopy wrote: I think that the fact that you committed the second crime as a result of committing the first should serve to yield a punishment strong than the sum of the two punishments taken separately.

I don't see any reason to think this, but perhaps this is an intuition that I just don't share.