Jhony5 said:Well you're right to some extent. When a predefined consequence of any action is laid out, and one chooses to run the risk....well its a cause and effect situation. Same as the East Germans knew the consequence when they decided to make West for the barbed wire. Point being, sometimes the consequence is far to extreme.
It's a bit of a stretch to compare the societal, religious, lack of democracy and freedom plight of millions of people to that of someone wanting a bong. It's like comparing your right to use a red pen at work to that of the inmates of germany's concentration camps in ww2 and their right to food...just ain't the same thing.
But I get your point.
Our laws, especially concerning drugs, have been finagled to a point where they prefer wrongful conviction over no conviction. Take this for example. Many states have adopted a law called "Constructive possession". What this means and where its applied is when they pull over a car with 4 people in it. Upon searching the vehicle they find a bag of cocaine under the seat. Under the terms of "Constructive possession" all people in the car are charged with possession of the same substance if no one admits ownership. Defying logic. No, its silly to assert that 4 people can possess the same object.
The other people might have had no knowledge whatsoever of the fact that any drugs were in the car, but they go to jail anyway. Because the law refuses to let people have a chance of getting away with a crime.
It's INSANE that possessing some pot for your own personal use has such dire consequences when smoking cigarettes is legal with proven health consequences...same could be said for alcohol with it's contribution to domestic violence, when after a bong all you feel like is food and listening to music...I haven't seen ONE SINGLE fight as a direct result of people being smashed on pot...how illogical the laws regarding pot are, it just blows my mind.
Your 4 person possession senario is, it would seem, an attempt to get people to "dob" the actual owner of the drugs in...I would suggest that if one of your mates is comfortable with letting you share in the fall for HIS DRUGS, then I'd suggest that that ****en piece of **** needs to be shot in the face with a .50 cal BMG.
There is NO WAY I'd would let my friends take the fall for my ****, and I hope they would do the same for me...if I knew the drugs belonged to someone else and they were attempting to get me to share in the consequences I would sing like a mother ****ing canary...**** them.
I however find these sort of semantics purely laughable. Buying, growing or possessing dope in no way directly or indirectly victimizes anyone, save for maybe yourself by way of having a habit. The logic that follows this is the same logic that has made attempted suicide a crime. Public intoxication, thats a ****ing crime? Ya buddy it is. But who was the victim? Stand out on the sidewalk in front of your home, drunk, and your breaking the law. Show me the victim please.
Think you catch my drift, Moko?
I suggest you ask that same question to the billions of people who have been a victim of crime by that same drunk person...of course it's stupid that you would get charged for being pissed in the street, but if it wasn't, how much more assaults would there be?, I'd suggest it's an attempt an pre-emptive legislation to make it undesirable to be a drunk, beligerent, piece of **** that's an embarrassment to themselves and a potential danger to themselves and others.
You do have a point, but you're not seeing the big picture.
Who was the victim of your friend who was caught with two bags of weed?...he himself was, his kids and his missus. Some laws are insane, but as a society we ask the law makers and government to make our society as safe as possible and we give them permission to do what they NEED to do to achieve that goal...as a society we can't ask that, then bitch and moan about being a victim of those permissions.