Never drank, never smoked, never did illegal substances....and I don't feel superior to people who drink and some illegal substances. I actually admire them if they can balance it into their life and it brings them some happiness.

I can't stand smoking, I grew up around it, had all but one grandparent die because of smoking giving them lung issues that either ultimately killed them or prevented them from getting procedures done to stop heart problems. Weak lungs would have guaranteed their death during surgery and no one would operate. So, I don't feel superior to them, but I'm an asthmatic it smells horrible, so I just can't be around them. Hell as I got older I had to quit hanging around with a friend of mine until he quit smoking because he just smoked more and more and I couldn't take being around him. Allergies, etc. Plus anytime he smoked I had to be away from him, so the more he smoked the less point there was to trying to hang out.

Illegal substances, mixed bag. Marijuana, not really a huge deal to me...I know too many functional people who use it. However I have a brother who is absolutely obsessed with marijuana, and it's obviously not beneficial to him due to that control it has over him. Cocaine, meth, heroin, etc....just seems like pissing money away for health issues you'll have to deal with later...plus a lot of substances age you prematurely or make your teeth fall out, etc. And teeth falling is something I've had nightmares about, so why the hell would I want to do that.

And I *KNOW* I have an addictive personality, this is why I don't try these things. Not because I feel superior, in fact I don't like not being able to try alcohol in particularly. I just know I would slowly slide into over-use on it. Plus most of it smells horrible, so as long as it smells horrible to me and I don't develop a taste for it...Im set.


I don't like Penn yelling/ranting like that to make his point, but I do think that they need to re-examine their drug policies. Because they seem less about drug control and more about people control, especially non-influential and poor people control. If it were about drug control, I think they'd be telling you that if they catch you on substances while driving you are out of a license immediately. Or if you commit a crime while on them, it's worse punishment. While if you're just on them and not doing anything of note.......then that's what you choose to do. I do get the argument on having to treat people who use substances.....but it's similar to people who overdose on scripts or over the counter stuff.

Rehabilitation does not happen anymore AFAIK, not like it used to. Now they work them for pennies on the dollar instead of paying minimum wage to regular workers. It's more for profit now than anything else, which I think is the real issue...they will find any law to enforce to get their populations and numbers up for profits.

Eeeeeehh.

There's no question that it should be legalized. There has never been, as far as I know, any coherent argument for why I should be able to drink myself to death, or to the emergency room for a stomach pump, but not use any of the perfectly healthy, safe, non-addictive and therapeutic substances. The shrooms I'm growing, for instance

And even if there were, it still wouldn't be good enough to justify drug prohibition when the changes people wish to see in society - less drug use and abuse, less drug-related gang violence, less addiction - are clearly more likely to be achieved by legalization and an intelligent, compassionate approach to rehabilitation.

But Cheech and Chong? Come on. If the marijuana legalization movement is to be taken as seriously as we need it to be, we're going to need more articulate spokespeople. Preferably ones that don't so completely fit into the stereotype of the stoner.

This isn't about the people who are all for smoking pot, this is about convincing the ones who are still opposed to it, and gathering enough popular momentum to permanently change drug policy. I don't think it's a good idea for those in opposition to see a couple of iconic potheads who can barely form a coherent sentence as faces of the movement.

Or maybe I should shut my goddamn mouth. Hands.

I'm glad you did this. You can say what you'd like about you trying to "rehabilitate" a person, but when you use tactics this extreme, is it backed by overwhelming scientific data to be successful with minimal side-effect? I'm not going to research it, but I'm pretty sure this is an archaic superstitious psychiatric ritual akin to lobotomies and phrenology.>> ^vaire2ube:

We warn you, this footage may severely increase our ratings and invoke empathy and anger. Fox News out.
hmmm context..
"JRC educates and treats the most difficult behaviorally involved students in the country and administers the GED to treat severe behavior disorders only after other treatments have failed and a court order is obtained to do so at the request of the student’s parents and doctor.
The treatment plan must also be approved by a Human Rights Committee, a Peer Review Committee and a physician.
These students predominantly exhibit behaviors that are dangerous to themselves and others and have been resistant to previous treatments. Students parents or guardians, along with their school districts and medical personnel are involved in developing care plans and in most cases, before coming to JRC have tried several residential programs and psychiatric facilities and found them unsuccessful. Often students are chemically restrained with medications and their guardians either remove them from those programs or the students are asked to leave.

On the issue of the video tape, the sole reason a recording exists is because JRC maintains cameras in every room where a student may receive treatment. It is the only such facility to do so. This is for the protection of the students in our care and is precisely to enable us to review every application of the GED."

It's not exactly an easy situation by any stretch... does the shock therapy ever actually work?

>> ^NaMeCaF:

Heh. If you've got nothing to hide, why not just let them do their job?
Fine, if you dont want to let them search, then you can't ever complain that the cops aren't doing their jobs and getting drugs and weapons off the street.


"Heh. If you've got nothing to hide, why not just let them do their job?"

You need rules and indaviduals need protection from police abusing there power you don't want to be constantly searched all the time do you ? You realise the ultimate point of laws and the police is so a society can function not so that people can be arrested and go to jail ?

"if you dont want to let them search, then you can't ever complain that the cops aren't doing their jobs and getting drugs and weapons off the street."

Well they are not doing there jobs if they are searching someone without probably cause or picking off random people to try and meat arrest quotas. Where do you stop would you like it so that we have to show papers to cops every place you go ? You realise the importance of inosent until proven guilty ?

"you can't ever complain that the cops aren't doing their jobs and getting drugs and weapons off the street"

Yes you can there is no causal link between cops randomly searching people and reducing the amount of drugs and weapons on the street as a whole. In fact research has shown that the more aggressive policing and penalties for drugs have increased the prevalence of drugs. ( just Google it and do some research )

Socities that have reduced crimiunal sentancing for drug possession and use and instead implemented mandatory rehabilitation have seen a massive reduction in drug use and crime.

So its perfectly reasonable to refuse a cop to do something In reality they should not even be asking they are themselves exploiting the good will of people that don't know the law. A cop asking to search your car is the equivilent of a random person knocking on your front door and saying hello would you mind if I look around the inside of your house ? if you say yes then they have permission and its not an intrusion if you say no then they cannot come in without braking trespassing laws. Just because that person is waring a random uniform does not suddenly change that , they still need permission from a court or from laws that say if there is probable cause they have a default permission to search.

In the same way that if I see your house on fire and someone screaming inside its not likely I would get done for trespassing ( if that person later complained) as I have a good solid legally supported reason to trespass on that property.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Which countries are we comparing to the US incarceration rate? The ones where the government kills you without a fair (or any) trial? The ones where women are still enslaved? Two million incarcerated out of 300 million...go ahead, boost the number imprisoned to 10 million, that's still one-thirtieth of the population.


>> ^raverman:
America has some of the highest rates of crime and imprisonment of most developed nations per capita.
I bet most Americans don't even know that... or believe that the freedom and democracy makes the US a safer place to live.
but why?
Culture? Too much sense of individualistic entitlement?
Guns? How might criminality be linked psychologically to arming individuals that suggests a constitutional entitlement to personal violence?
System? Does Imprisonment reduce re-offending? are long jail time sentences better than rehabilitation? Are sentences appropriate to crimes committed?
Everyone's focused on reducing crime and not asking if the cycle of punishment may be part of the problem.



You forgot about all the non-banana-republics with lower crime rates and lower incarceration rates than the US. e.g., most of north/western europe and most of what used to be the British empire.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Which countries are we comparing to the US incarceration rate? The ones where the government kills you without a fair (or any) trial? The ones where women are still enslaved? Two million incarcerated out of 300 million...go ahead, boost the number imprisoned to 10 million, that's still one-thirtieth of the population.
>> ^raverman:
America has some of the highest rates of crime and imprisonment of most developed nations per capita.
I bet most Americans don't even know that... or believe that the freedom and democracy makes the US a safer place to live.
but why?
Culture? Too much sense of individualistic entitlement?
Guns? How might criminality be linked psychologically to arming individuals that suggests a constitutional entitlement to personal violence?
System? Does Imprisonment reduce re-offending? are long jail time sentences better than rehabilitation? Are sentences appropriate to crimes committed?
Everyone's focused on reducing crime and not asking if the cycle of punishment may be part of the problem.


All countries. ALL COUNTRIES. We incarcerate more people (officially) per capita than any other country in the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate

When looking at the list, please keep in mind that Rwanda (woo, we only imprison 25% more of our population than they do!) should not be our competition. We should be trying to be better than other sturdy Western countries with stable economies. We out-imprison them by 4-500%.

Which countries are we comparing to the US incarceration rate? The ones where the government kills you without a fair (or any) trial? The ones where women are still enslaved? Two million incarcerated out of 300 million...go ahead, boost the number imprisoned to 10 million, that's still one-thirtieth of the population.




>> ^raverman:

America has some of the highest rates of crime and imprisonment of most developed nations per capita.
I bet most Americans don't even know that... or believe that the freedom and democracy makes the US a safer place to live.
but why?
Culture? Too much sense of individualistic entitlement?
Guns? How might criminality be linked psychologically to arming individuals that suggests a constitutional entitlement to personal violence?
System? Does Imprisonment reduce re-offending? are long jail time sentences better than rehabilitation? Are sentences appropriate to crimes committed?
Everyone's focused on reducing crime and not asking if the cycle of punishment may be part of the problem.

Don't get me wrong, I think a lot of crimes shouldn't be, like drugs and the like. But there isn't a first world country of western values (so I am leaving out japan here), close to the size of the US. Things don't always scale how you would suppose (lineally). I still think you are right to suppose we do lock up to many people here, I would agree. But I think to compare fairly, you would need to do so with a comparable sized country, of which there isn't really a suitable one. Entropy is a real thing in many other biological instances (especially population densities), it might also apply to cultures...and the corresponding social/economic factors as a result. Once again, not a justification, just perhaps and explanation that if other countries were as large they would experience the same whoas.

Also, I would tend to expect more people in jails where freedom abounds, ironically. What I mean is, when freedom is cheap, people will tend to push the boundary of what isn't free (moral hazard) moreso than if they were afraid to practice certain freedoms. Moral hazard is a newish word that gets thrown around a lot now, but I think there is merit in the concept. When you are given leeway, you take all that you can get...and perhaps a bit more. Resulting in the ironic position that practicing extreme liberty results in many who have restricted liberty because of violations. Life is funny that way. And once again, I think we go overboard here on what is legal and illegal. (soon, it is going to be illegal for me not to carry health insurance for example, and it is already illegal for me to do certain unapproved drugs. I don't imagine it much time before it is illegal to be fat, or any type of burden on someone else's view of utopia.)


>> ^raverman:

America has some of the highest rates of crime and imprisonment of most developed nations per capita.
I bet most Americans don't even know that... or believe that the freedom and democracy makes the US a safer place to live.
but why?
Culture? Too much sense of individualistic entitlement?
Guns? How might criminality be linked psychologically to arming individuals that suggests a constitutional entitlement to personal violence?
System? Does Imprisonment reduce re-offending? are long jail time sentences better than rehabilitation? Are sentences appropriate to crimes committed?
Everyone's focused on reducing crime and not asking if the cycle of punishment may be part of the problem.

>> ^raverman:

America has some of the highest rates of crime and imprisonment of most developed nations per capita.
I bet most Americans don't even know that... or believe that the freedom and democracy makes the US a safer place to live.
but why?
Culture? Too much sense of individualistic entitlement?
Guns? How might criminality be linked psychologically to arming individuals that suggests a constitutional entitlement to personal violence?
System? Does Imprisonment reduce re-offending? are long jail time sentences better than rehabilitation? Are sentences appropriate to crimes committed?
Everyone's focused on reducing crime and not asking if the cycle of punishment may be part of the problem.


theFreak pretty much nailed it above.

America has turned prisons into a profit generating system. In fact, crime itself, including terrorism, has created an enormously profitable system - private prisons, private guards, private security, private counter-terrorism (espionage, etc.). all funded with the taxpayer buck by means of politicians who claim to "reduce" government at the cost of incredible windfalls to private contractors (and nice "donations" back to the politician).

To keep the motor humming, the lower classes are generally targeted.
From a propaganda standpoint, being poor (and black) in this country is pretty much equated with being a criminal. It is an essential element in the "blame the poor" lie for the woes of this country. Since it is drilled into our brains, our society largely doesn't give a fuck that the laws and enforcement of the laws are generally inequitable to the lower income class.

and so the wheel turns.
Only an informed public can fix this crap.

America has some of the highest rates of crime and imprisonment of most developed nations per capita.

I bet most Americans don't even know that... or believe that the freedom and democracy makes the US a safer place to live.

but why?

* Culture? Too much sense of individualistic entitlement?
* Guns? How might criminality be linked psychologically to arming individuals that suggests a constitutional entitlement to personal violence?
* System? Does Imprisonment reduce re-offending? are long jail time sentences better than rehabilitation? Are sentences appropriate to crimes committed?

Everyone's focused on reducing crime and not asking if the cycle of punishment may be part of the problem.

Wow, I am a bit taken aback by your soft and somewhat flattering response. When I first saw the email that said you had quoted me I braced myself for the typical QM "both barrels" response. Thank you for surprising me.

As far as what social economic system is better than another I would suggest that pure capitalism would likely also fail. History has shown us that when too few have too much and too many have too little the many take drastic steps to redistribute the wealth themselves. Look at the history of Europe.

The human element adds uncertainty and chaos to any system and subsequently all systems are inherently flawed. That is why there are regulating bodies that are meant to enforce the will of the people. When the regulations or those who enforce them are negatively interfered with, society either in part or as a whole, must fail.

I pay about 32% income tax and from what I can figure that number rises to more than 50% when you factor in property tax, sales tax, fuel tax, etc. Despite this burden I do very well so if a portion of these taxes are going to help some person from a poor household to get a better education or it provides care for an elderly person who has no means to support themselves, or even if it goes to the rehabilitation of a young prostitute with a meth addiction I am okay with that. Better roads, better schools, better hospitals, law enforcement, fire protection, it is in support of these socialistically supported things and more that I accept the reduction of half of my earned income.

There will always be people who get what they don't deserve but for the sake of those that do deserve our help I think that we must accept that.
<Insert the clichéd “bad apples” quote here.>

If my contribution can give one person the chance to change their future like I did it is worth it to me.

>> ^quantumushroom:

First of all you are suggesting that Bill Gates is so rich that he has no idea what he pays in taxes... that when he says that wealthy people should be taxed more he is doing that from a position of ignorance. Astonishing.
Rich people can be quite ignorant. Oprah is, and Obama, also rich, doesn't seem to know anything about economics.

As for your quote...
The fundamental issue with your viewpoint is that you see capitalism and socialism as complete and polar oposites that could never meet in the middle. In your ideal world only those who could afford it would be fed, protected, healed, and educated. To hell with those in need.
That's not my viewpoint, however I am extremely skeptical of the so-called "Third Way". Socialism always fails, and capitalism fails when oversaturated with socialism. Look at Europe.
Somehow this is a better existance than a society that defends and cares for it's weakest members? One that provides an equal oportunity of prosperity for all?
I am both lucky and proud to have been born Canadian. When I first started out I had nothing. Due to a very unsatisfactory home life I left home when I was 17 and dropped out of school. During my early years I had the need to make use of unemployment insurance, welfare, and food banks. I worked a blue collar job while raising my kids and as my income was so low I had my government health premiums subsidized to almost nothing. Eventually I got government student loans and went to school at night to try and change carears to improve my situation. I received grants, deducted what little interest there was on the loans from my income tax and in the end most of the debt was forgiven.
Why am I telling you this? Because today I am a professional making 6 figures a year, I have raised a family of 4 children, and I am closing in on a zero mortgage balance. None of which would have been possible in the world that you wish for.
I salute your inspiring life story. The system worked for you, but you still did most of the work. The suggestion that you never would've made it without all the aid I do not believe. What about your neighbor who is perfectly happy living off of unemployment insurance, welfare, food banks, etc. forever? Are you willing to support those who won't--not can't--work as hard as you? Why should you have to raise his children with your taxes along with your own?
I'm not advocating Lord of the Flies, I'm saying the left needs to get its head out of the clouds. There are no solutions in life, only trade-offs.
>> ^Deadrisenmortal:
First of all you are suggesting that Bill Gates is so rich that he has no idea what he pays in taxes... that when he says that wealthy people should be taxed more he is doing that from a position of ignorance. Astonishing.
As for your quote...
The fundamental issue with your viewpoint is that you see capitalism and socialism as complete and polar oposites that could never meet in the middle. In your ideal world only those who could afford it would be fed, protected, healed, and educated. To hell with those in need.
Somehow this is a better existance than a society that defends and cares for it's weakest members? One that provides an equal oportunity of prosperity for all?
I am both lucky and proud to have been born Canadian. When I first started out I had nothing. Due to a very unsatisfactory home life I left home when I was 17 and dropped out of school. During my early years I had the need to make use of unemployment insurance, welfare, and food banks. I worked a blue collar job while raising my kids and as my income was so low I had my government health premiums subsidized to almost nothing. Eventually I got government student loans and went to school at night to try and change carears to improve my situation. I received grants, deducted what little interest there was on the loans from my income tax and in the end most of the debt was forgiven.
Why am I telling you this? Because today I am a professional making 6 figures a year, I have raised a family of 4 children, and I am closing in on a zero mortgage balance. None of which would have been possible in the world that you wish for.

>>

>> ^longde:

I'll only accept that argument from vegans. The rest of us humans inflict horrible suffering on animals (or directly benefit from it) all the time. I think what the data referenced above shows is that many or most people who are sadistic fiends have once hurt animals, not the opposite, that most people who hurt animals will turn into sadistic fiends (unproven, but could be true).
What separates a cat from a cockroach? Both are animals, right? I have horribly murdered so many cockroaches and flies it's ridiculous. I knew kids who used to kick over or flood ant mounds. Lemme check facebook...yep, all psychopaths.
The reason doesn't matter if the concern is for the suffering of sentient beings, right? So, what about sport hunters? Butchers? Livestock Farmers? Chefs? You get the point. All these people inflict great pain on animals. I guess my whole extended family are closet ax murderers, since it contains sport hunters, sport fishermen, people who raise and slaughter hogs, etc.....and people who used to go to Red Lobster on weekends.
I myself don't think cats are any more entitled than hogs, deer, chickens, lobsters and cows...or flies and cockroaches. And certainly not on the same level as humans (which too many people believe). So, while I recognize that cats et al suffer, feel empathy and would never hurt any animal (I don't even like killing spiders now; even at the behest of my wife) ; I can't get as worked up over this as some of you are.

(BTW, this conversation reminds me of the Lawrence Block story "How would you like it?")
edit: except mosquitoes. >> ^Gallowflak:
>> ^longde:
I think its inhumane, but cat's aren't people. Doing this to a cat does not necessarily mean they could do it to a person, IMO.
>> ^Jinx:
Psychopath. Honestly, if you can be that cruel to an animal I don't really believe they won't do it to a human. Just a complete lack of empathy.


What does it show? That they're able to inflict horrible suffering on a creature without being halted by such measly things as compassion or empathy. An act like this is a huge warning sign that we're dealing with a morally bankrupt piece of shit, at the least, or psychopath, at the worst.
A human being without empathy who acts immorally is someone who, if rehabilitation isn't possible, the community needs to get rid of.



Yes, we all benefit from the suffering of animals, that's true, but there's not an equivalence between that and inflicting it oneself.

There's a vast difference between animals suffering as a consequence of an action that has utility and inflicting suffering for its own sake.

I'll only accept that argument from vegans. The rest of us humans inflict horrible suffering on animals (or directly benefit from it) all the time. I think what the data referenced above shows is that many or most people who are sadistic fiends have once hurt animals, not the opposite, that most people who hurt animals will turn into sadistic fiends (unproven, but could be true).

What separates a cat from a cockroach? Both are animals, right? I have horribly murdered so many cockroaches and flies it's ridiculous. I knew kids who used to kick over or flood ant mounds. Lemme check facebook...yep, all psychopaths.

The reason doesn't matter if the concern is for the suffering of sentient beings, right? So, what about sport hunters? Butchers? Livestock Farmers? Chefs? You get the point. All these people inflict great pain on animals. I guess my whole extended family are closet ax murderers, since it contains sport hunters, sport fishermen, people who raise and slaughter hogs, etc.....and people who used to go to Red Lobster on weekends.

I myself don't think cats are any more entitled than hogs, deer, chickens, lobsters and cows...or flies and cockroaches. And certainly not on the same level as humans (which too many people believe). So, while I recognize that cats et al suffer, feel empathy and would never hurt any animal (I don't even like killing spiders now; even at the behest of my wife)*; I can't get as worked up over this as some of you are.


(BTW, this conversation reminds me of the Lawrence Block story "How would you like it?")

*edit: except mosquitoes. >> ^Gallowflak:

>> ^longde:
I think its inhumane, but cat's aren't people. Doing this to a cat does not necessarily mean they could do it to a person, IMO.
>> ^Jinx:
Psychopath. Honestly, if you can be that cruel to an animal I don't really believe they won't do it to a human. Just a complete lack of empathy.


What does it show? That they're able to inflict horrible suffering on a creature without being halted by such measly things as compassion or empathy. An act like this is a huge warning sign that we're dealing with a morally bankrupt piece of shit, at the least, or psychopath, at the worst.
A human being without empathy who acts immorally is someone who, if rehabilitation isn't possible, the community needs to get rid of.

>> ^longde:

I think its inhumane, but cat's aren't people. Doing this to a cat does not necessarily mean they could do it to a person, IMO.
>> ^Jinx:
Psychopath. Honestly, if you can be that cruel to an animal I don't really believe they won't do it to a human. Just a complete lack of empathy.



What does it show? That they're able to inflict horrible suffering on a creature without being halted by such measly things as compassion or empathy. An act like this is a huge warning sign that we're dealing with a morally bankrupt piece of shit, at the least, or psychopath, at the worst.

A human being without empathy who acts immorally is someone who, if rehabilitation isn't possible, the community needs to get rid of.

>> ^Crosswords:

I don't disagree with the assessments of the video, but I'm pretty certain this is just another one of our famous polished turds. There's a good chance this program is only limited to Dallas county, and may not be in effect, or at the very least hasn't grown.
Canada probably does/did a whole lot more to rehabilitate criminals than Texas ever will. Maybe its easier to show the efficacy of a program when you go to a place where its essentially incarceration without rehabilitation.
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/crimereports/10/citCh2.pdf


a polished turd would even be a good start, especially when states are faced with enormous budgetary shortfalls. the Buddhists would say "suffering brings wisdom", altho it might be more apt to say in this case, with financial ruin comes rationality. (hopefully)
all in all, it's a positive at a time when we could use some positives, in a place that one would least expect it.