Why? Because they sold pot? If they weren't selling it to children, and they weren't committing violent or otherwise "victim" crimes in the commission of growing or selling pot, why do they belong there? The pot's got to come from somewhere. If you look at the history of pot politics in this country, it becomes painfully obvious that the government's policies have been severely reactionary.

Quote:

What propaganda have you been reading that states misdemeanor pot offenses result in hard prison sentences? In Iran petty marijuana users may get prison sentences. It doesn't happen here. People caught with a joint or a small bag don't do serious prison time.

Do you have any idea how small an amount of marijuana you need to possess to be charged with Intent To Distribute? Try looking it up sometime. There are thousands of people in prison who will remain there for a long time because they smoke a lot of weed. Some of them are people who are dying, and will not see freedom until they are shipped out in a casket.

Quote:

Some may spend some time in the lockup waiting to appear before a judge, but then again if you want to smoke pot... don't do it in public and don't act like an asshole in interactions with the police. Some stoners don't seem to grasp that concept. Maybe that is why they are stoners.

I'd agree that discretion is key in avoiding confrontation with police, but that's not the issue here. The issue here is that the justice system has overstepped its bounds. Pot smokers shouldn't be in lockup for smoking pot.

Quote:

If some users have been caught up in the "three strikes" laws of some states, I've already stated those laws need to revisited and rewritten.

Whatever.

Quote:

Everything else you have written in your previous post is nothing but complete dismissal and bordering on ad hominem.

Pot, meet kettle. You'll have no sympathy from anyone on this board in your defense of ad hominem attacks against you. You are a purveyor of fallacy, and ad hominem is your best offense.

I completely dismissed your points because they have no merit. Try writing something reasonable, and I'll be happy to consider your opinion.

Quote:

You refuse to debate any specific points brought into this debate or any peripheral or similar type scenarios brought into the argument that have been posed by people not on your side of the debate.

I felt I've held my own in this debate. If you cannot understand the points I've made, well, there's really no sense in my spoonfeeding them to you. I have a very basic argument against marijuana laws, one I believe has not been addressed with reason, but with scare tactics and fear mongering. We're a little past the dire warnings of Reefer Madness, don't you think?

Quote:

You do nothing but dismiss everything. It seems you do it based solely on the fact that you smoke pot and therefore think your habit should be legal.

Madman, today in L.A. the sky was a gorgeous shade of blue. Or was it? Maybe I'm telling you the sky was blue because I like blue skies...maybe I'm purporting my blueskyist propaganda here on this board right now, trying to convince everyone that my desired color of sky is the true sky color. Maybe I just don't see the reality, that maybe the sky is blood red, and my blueskyist tendencies have skewed my vision.

Or maybe the sky was just fucking blue.

Quote:

The biggest thing you dismiss is the fact that the general public does not want pot to be legalized. All pot users ignore that fact.

Do you not understand the basic precepts of Justice and Law? Jesus, for a "former law enforcement officer", you sure don't know that much about the law. I'm not talking about referendum. I don't care if 99% of the American public thinks pot should stay illegal. Justice does not (or at least should not) be swayed by public opinion, which is pendulous and fickle at best, and dangerously unstable at worst. Justice is not about mob rule or even majority rule. Justice is about fairness. Justice is about keeping our laws within the precepts of the Constitution.

Marijuana laws are not fair, nor do they find ethical or moral shelter in the Constitution. They are reactionary, draconian measures based on a dark history of special interest hype, pandering to distorted public perceptions, fear-mongering, and lack of regulability. They are a blight on our justice system, and we are all the worse for it.