• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

A little upset right now

I don't know if I'd agree with that, at least in my area.

I'm more surprised that my area is so light on drunk driving. About once a week there's a 6th or 7th time drunk driver who is out on the road and busted yet again. Obviously the drunk didn't learn his lesson, but if he's out and still driving we obviously didn't learn the lesson, either. :atoz:
When I was a substance abuse therapist, I worked pretty directly with the courts. I also always had access to criminal records. I saw some harmless users go away for a pretty long time. They may have had criminal records, but many times their records were filled with possession charges. I've also seen more violent offenders get the proverbial wrist slap.
 
Semi on topic, I'd appreciate a demonstration of a petty pot dealer getting life and a murder getting out in 10 years. Doesn't seem to happen in my area that we know of. Otherwise it just seams to be 3rd or 4th hand rumors.

I don't know about "petty" pot dealers - but there are a number of folks serving life for non-violent marijuana offenses.

John Knock, Paul Free, Larry Duke, Randy Lanier, Michael Pelletier...

Murder getting out in 10 years? Happens ALL the time. Last I knew the nationwide average sentence served for murder (of any degree) was about 22 years.

See: Michael Lawrence, Jack Ferrell, Dwain Little, Vernon Sattiewhite, Zeno E. Sims...
 
When I was a substance abuse therapist, I worked pretty directly with the courts. I also always had access to criminal records. I saw some harmless users go away for a pretty long time. They may have had criminal records, but many times their records were filled with possession charges. I've also seen more violent offenders get the proverbial wrist slap.

One thing to note is that it's often harder to get a conviction with violent offenders. It's harder to prove, the lawyers are often much higher profile, and there are simply a lot of logistics. It's rather simple to prove possession and/or intent to sell.

Since I know a few local law enforcement and a few ex-SWAT, the guys they went after had a BIG stash as well as lots of weapons. Let's be honest, it's not that difficult to catch them. Murders simply have better chances to escape and elude.
 
Semi on topic, I'd appreciate a demonstration of a petty pot dealer getting life and a murder getting out in 10 years. Doesn't seem to happen in my area that we know of. Otherwise it just seams to be 3rd or 4th hand rumors.

Ignoring your straw man, I will give an example a grower (as I first stated) getting life.

Link Removed

But I'll meet your criteria, here's a guy who got life for a pound of weed.

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

EIGHT years ago Douglas Lamar Gray bought a pound of marijuana in a room at the Econo Lodge in Decatur, Alabama. He planned to keep a few ounces for himself and sell the rest to some friends. Gray was a Vietnam veteran with an artificial leg. As a young man, he'd been convicted of a number of petty crimes, none serious enough to warrant a prison sentence. He had stayed out of trouble for a good thirteen years. He now owned a business called Gray's Roofing and Remodeling Service. He had a home, a wife, and a two-year-old son. The man who sold him the drug, Jimmy Wilcox, was a felon just released from prison, with more than thirty convictions on his record. Wilcox was also an informer employed by the Morgan County Drug Task Force. The pound of marijuana had been supplied by the local sheriff's department, as part of a sting. After paying Wilcox $900 for the pot, which seemed like a real bargain, Douglas Lamar Gray was arrested and charged with "trafficking in cannabis." He was tried, convicted, fined $25,000, sentenced to life in prison without parole, and sent to the maximum-security penitentiary in Springville, Alabama -- an aging, overcrowded prison filled with murderers and other violent inmates. He remains there to this day. Under the stress of his imprisonment Gray's wife attempted suicide with a pistol, survived the gunshot, and then filed for divorce. Jimmy Wilcox, the informer, was paid $100 by the county for his services in the case.
Gray's punishment, although severe, is by no means unusual in the United States. The laws of at least fifteen states now require life sentences for certain nonviolent marijuana offenses. In Montana a life sentence can be imposed for growing a single marijuana plant or selling a single joint.

Eight years for murder.

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed].
 
Ignoring your straw man, I will give an example a grower (as I first stated) getting life.

Link Removed

But I'll meet your criteria, here's a guy who got life for a pound of weed.

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]



Eight years for murder.

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed].

Ignoring your strawman, keep in mind that the ones that get off easy will inevitably happen AND the media will hype them. Under this premise, it will seem that the system really busts petty weed dealers more than violent felons.

My area doesn't catch many murders, but the ones who are caught and have enough evidence for a conviction go away for a long time. We've even executed a few, but IMO the lawyers made it economically inefficient to do so.
 
Ignoring your strawman, keep in mind that the ones that get off easy will inevitably happen AND the media will hype them. Under this premise, it will seem that the system really busts petty weed dealers more than violent felons.

My area doesn't catch many murders, but the ones who are caught and have enough evidence for a conviction go away for a long time. We've even executed a few, but IMO the lawyers made it economically inefficient to do so.


It is of no consolation to the people serving inappropriate sentences for possession or petty dealing that, as you put it, it doesn't happen as often the media would have you think. Their lives are ruined.

It's not just the lawyers, it's the sentencing guidelines mandated by the government. Even judges have their hands tied in some cases and are forced to mete out sentences they admit are too severe.
 
It is of no consolation to the people serving inappropriate sentences for possession or petty dealing that, as you put it, it doesn't happen as often the media would have you think. Their lives are ruined.

It's not just the lawyers, it's the sentencing guidelines mandated by the government. Even judges have their hands tied in some cases and are forced to mete out sentences they admit are too severe.

It's one thing to partake and I have no problem with that, despite the law saying otherwise. When the stash is over 50lbs, it's no longer an issue of personal use, even for Snoop Dog.

The legal process is complicated. Quite often, the murders who "get off easy" were more or less barely convicted. When the evidence and court process is strong, there tends to be much tougher sentencing and a higher rate of conviction. Sure, some will have a great lawyer and get away with it. The saying is "innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt". We can't just selectively want this to apply to certain people.

Judges don't get to make up the rules.
 
Convenient is a fun choice of words, but it's easier to catch them red handed. Murders are often very difficult to catch. Without the catch, ya simply can't convict.

Convenient is a fair assessment of the situation. If the money and resources allocated to catching stoners (task force, sting operations, etc) were spent on investigating violent crimes, fewer violent offenders would get away with it. You might not catch as many of them as you would drug offenders, but you'd be doing more to protect society from becoming victims of violent crimes. But drug busts make great headlines, help DAs get reelected and the perps are more docile than murders and easier to warehouse.
 
Convenient is a fair assessment of the situation. If the money and resources allocated to catching stoners (task force, sting operations, etc) were spent on investigating violent crimes, fewer violent offenders would get away with it. You might not catch as many of them as you would drug offenders, but you'd be doing more to protect society from becoming victims of violent crimes. But drug busts make great headlines, help DAs get reelected and the perps are more docile than murders and easier to warehouse.

You can throw as much money as you want at catching violent criminals, but it doesn't make it any easier to catch them. Anyone who thinks so has seen too much CSI and Law and Order.

Murders tend to be more elusive and drug dealers are basically stationary, other than the major transporters.
 
the thread hijack doesnt really bother me.. although i would love to see you guys tear apart the horrible writing in the second article i posted.

the pot debate is odd to me. for years i hated it with a passion and would not associate with anyone that i knew used. now i choose not to be around people WHILE they are using and if they annoy me while stoned then i choose not to be around them then as well.

I will never do drugs and will not be in a relationship with someone who uses drugs but i've quit worrying about what other people are doing. my mantra with it is as basic as this "leave it at home"

both sides of the argument are full of $*** as far as i'm concerned. they both have an agenda to push, so my belief is that the truth lies firmly in between the propaganda of both sides.

I hear a lot of "you see angry drunks all the time you never see angry stoners" I call bullspit on that, you wanna argue that come on over and i'll introduce you to a dozen or more angry stoners that i know.. i also no happy ones, lazy ones, creative ones, useless ones.. hey, just like non stoned people! and the same goes for drunks.. i know angry ones, happy ones, lazy ones, ones who get the munchies (thatd be me) and the dont ever shut the **** up ones (also me)

the main thing that worries me is children and exposure to alcohol and any kind of drug, if you are exposing your children to it then i feel like it robs them of there ability to make a choice, or it may force there choice be it into drinking and drugs or away from it.... thats about as much as i'm willing to get into that.
 
I believe it is hypocritical to say "possession for use is OK, but distribution is wrong". Every user supports dealers, unless he grows his own. The only reason some distributors are armed thugs is because the risks involved with engaging in an activity deemed illegal will attract those people to the occupation and discourage law abiding citizens. Take away the archaic laws, regulate it like tobacco and alcohol, and you will see responsible, law abiding citizens involved with distributing it. Tax it, and the people now legally employed in it's distribution, marketing, growing, packaging will also pay income taxes. it would take a big chunk out our country's budget deficit if this multi billion dollar black market suddenly became legitimate business. California has collected millions in taxes from dispensaries, and it is only a tip of the iceberg. Yet while facing a budget crisis, they are now closing them down. They are shooting themselves in the foot.
 
You can throw as much money as you want at catching violent criminals, but it doesn't make it any easier to catch them. Anyone who thinks so has seen too much CSI and Law and Order.

Murders tend to be more elusive and drug dealers are basically stationary, other than the major transporters.

arggghh the bane of my existence is the things people "learn" on television...

pertinent to this case the worthless piece of crap was in a mental ward of the prison when first arrested and everyone thought he was going to get out of prison by going for insanity.. and I had a rough time convincing them it does not work like you saw on law and order "on you're crazy? we're sorry let us take those handcuffs off and lead you out the courtroom to your freedom"
 
You can throw as much money as you want at catching violent criminals, but it doesn't make it any easier to catch them. Anyone who thinks so has seen too much CSI and Law and Order.

Murders tend to be more elusive and drug dealers are basically stationary, other than the major transporters.

So it IS about convenience. The fact that they are harder to catch means you should work harder at catching them, not going after easier (but less malevolent) targets, unless you are just worried about how many convictions you can show at election time, regardless of the charge.
 
Perhaps the pot itself is harmless, but when you're dealing with a really big stash, there's often a not so harmless AK-47 guarding the stash. :hmm:

Sometimes, true, but more than often not the case.
Most of the pot on the East Coast comes from Northern California. ;)

A direct result of the f'ed up laws. If it was legal you wouldn't have armed gangs trafficking it.

Nah, just a bunch of stoners in the Emerald Triangle. And some stoners from the East driving in to pick it up. They must leave the AKs at home...
 
the pot debate is odd to me.

Meh, it is what it is. I just try to keep certain facts into the equation. I'm much more science oriented than most musicians, so my points tend to be very against the grain. I'll admit that I detest most of the "studies" that are presented that claim it's a cure-all. Studies was in quotes because I had to take biostats and know my way around a medical journal, not that I enjoyed learning and knowing that stuff. :hmm: Boring.
 
So it IS about convenience. The fact that they are harder to catch means you should work harder at catching them, not going after easier (but less malevolent) targets, unless you are just worried about how many convictions you can show at election time, regardless of the charge.

Other than throwing money at the problem, how exactly would you propose we catch violent criminals? Honest question, but I hope you understand the logistics.
 
the thread hijack doesnt really bother me.. although i would love to see you guys tear apart the horrible writing in the second article i posted.

the pot debate is odd to me. for years i hated it with a passion and would not associate with anyone that i knew used. now i choose not to be around people WHILE they are using and if they annoy me while stoned then i choose not to be around them then as well.

I will never do drugs and will not be in a relationship with someone who uses drugs but i've quit worrying about what other people are doing. my mantra with it is as basic as this "leave it at home"

both sides of the argument are full of $*** as far as i'm concerned. they both have an agenda to push, so my belief is that the truth lies firmly in between the propaganda of both sides.

I hear a lot of "you see angry drunks all the time you never see angry stoners" I call bullspit on that, you wanna argue that come on over and i'll introduce you to a dozen or more angry stoners that i know.. i also no happy ones, lazy ones, creative ones, useless ones.. hey, just like non stoned people! and the same goes for drunks.. i know angry ones, happy ones, lazy ones, ones who get the munchies (thatd be me) and the dont ever shut the **** up ones (also me)

the main thing that worries me is children and exposure to alcohol and any kind of drug, if you are exposing your children to it then i feel like it robs them of there ability to make a choice, or it may force there choice be it into drinking and drugs or away from it.... thats about as much as i'm willing to get into that.


You seem to already be cognizant of the fact that the "angry stoners" you know would also be angry if they were straight. I will add that they might possibly be even angrier when they are straight. Some people just have chip on their shoulder. Some of them take valium, some smoke weed to take the edge off. Counseling might be a better approach, but if weed keeps them from going postal in the meantime, it might not be such a bad thing.
The biggest danger one generally faces when dealing with someone who smokes is getting caught up in a conversation that has no end or apparent direction.
 
Meh, it is what it is. I just try to keep certain facts into the equation. I'm much more science oriented than most musicians, so my points tend to be very against the grain. I'll admit that I detest most of the "studies" that are presented that claim it's a cure-all. Studies was in quotes because I had to take biostats and know my way around a medical journal, not that I enjoyed learning and knowing that stuff. :hmm: Boring.

yeah i kinda touched on that later in the post i made. frankly i just dont buy all of it. if a pro marijuana organization is writing your check then hell yeah ur study is gonna say its good. its the global warming debate all over again.

cuz heck, we might as well beat on that dead horse while we're at it.
 

Latest posts