Oregon county decriminalizes heroin, meth, cocaine and shoplifting, among others

haven't heard anything on the radio as of late for a backup of a story, but i don't watch the news either. It wouldn't surprise me if this does or is happening, The Portland slogan is: Keep Portland Wierd! ..


yeeeah and this would be the understatement .. ~~~!!!!

oh good ole Multnomah county, home to portland oregon.

i know the county well, particularly portland, just so you all know marijuana was already decriminilized here a year or so ago.
now these drugs too.

im sure like last time majority of voters in that county realy dont mind, most probly dont even know about this change too, the most who live in this county that know about this change in law will be the ones already doing these drugs, so it realy isn't going to make a difference.

it'll have a positive difference though,

we cant expect a man to break his addictions and start a normal healthy life, if we outcast him by labeling him a criminal which will only make his life more difficult.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
...and for the second time now, neither I, nor anyone else in this thread has put words in your mouth, and I quoted you verbatim. If you can't take responsibility for your own words, then this is your problem, but disingenuously deflecting what you said, and claiming other I and other people are putting words in your mouth for taking you to task for the words you wrote, doesn't help your case.

You are going off on an issue and using it in the wrong context, and in the process you are quoting me without placing it in proper context. So yes, you are misleading in the response as to what I said and the context it ws meant in.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
You brought up the issue of slavery, and used slavery as a justification for the prohibition of drugs by making the argument that these things happen because of the way "society" sees it. It is you making this argument and no one else. I told you from the get go it was a mistake to make the slavery analogy, and either you can own up to that mistake, or keep deflecting by insisting people are putting words in your mouth, but the more you insist on doing the latter, the worse it looks for you.

I brought up the societal change slavery had. I never used slavery as a justification for anything, so please go back and read what I type. I was drawing parallels to what a society has to do to move an issue that was once considered legal/illegal to the opposite spectrum.. I also brought up civil rights, gays, etc to show the same societal changes were present.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
I have pointed out that slavery was never, ever legal in the United States, and I made a strong case to support that, and instead of acknowledging that, you are still backpedaling claiming I have put words in your mouth. I have not. I continue to insist that slavery was never legal, and as a point of law, you are in error. Slavery was never condoned by legislation and it is a mistake to insist that it was once legal in the United States. The same goes for drug use and trafficking. Prior to prohibition legislative acts, narcotics was never condoned by legal fiat in the United States. It is an erroneous assertion to claim that narcotics was once legal. Narcotics was, prior to legislation prohibiting it, outside the purview of the law.

Then you need to go back and brush up on US history. Before we became a nation, we were under British, and Spanish Rule (Florida) where slavery was legal by both countries, which at the time meant our colonies. When we had our war of insurrection, only the Federal Government was set up. The argument was to abolish slavery. The South took issues with this because unlike the North, which was industrialized, the South was still agricultural, and their livelihood was dependent upon this.

A compromise was suggested that would phase slavery out over a period of time, allowing the south time to modernize and industrialize. The Southern states said no, a compromise was never found, and we have a civil war.

When the war was over, the 13th amendment was passed, making slavery illegal.

If slavery were already illegal as you are claiming, why the need to out law it? Why did we fight the civil war? Also, when we ceded from England, what laws do you think we were using? We continued to use English Common Law, and we still use it to this day (except for Louisiana).

As a side note England did not officially end slavery until 1833.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
You just don't want to admit that it was mistake using it as an example. Slavery was never, as you claim, legal in the United States. Slavery was not seen "as a good idea" by several of the original states in the Union, and as for the Southern states, not a single one had made it legal, and had instead ignored the legal issue, and left it outside the purview of the law.

The only error in judgment I made was the assumption people would
A; Understand their countries History
B. See the Societal change argument and understand it
C. Use common sense to apply it to how society viewed drugs, how they view it now, and see the societal change in progress.
D. The descriptions are valid, and I would use these historical comparisons as they are key in understanding how a society develops morals / beliefs / what have you in order to effect change in a society that that is fearful of change.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Marijuana has never been legal in the United States, and you will not find one single Act of Legislation to support your claim. Prior to legislation that either prohibited it, or taxed it, there was no legislation declaring it legal. It was outside the purview of the law until legislatures began taxing and prohibiting it. I took great care to provide the definition of legal, and you are ignoring this effort in order to keep making your claims. You are, as a point of law, in error.

Where are you coming up with this stuff? It was legal to possess, sell and smoke in the United States, as well as the colonies while we were singing God Save the Queen. In the early colonies not growing it could land you in trouble. Back then, in addition to just smoking it, it was used for other key things at the time, like rope, cloth etc.

It was in this country before we were a country. It was legal in this country, until Utah decided to outlaw it. You can then make the arguments about business getting involved that used items other than hemp to make cloth, Sails, etc - namely cotton from the south. Just because there is not a law that makes it legal, doesn't make it illegal either. As far as the flip side argument, it can be argued the law was passed based on religious grounds and nothing else.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Because the inalienable right to do so was never questioned.

And I would point out that at the State level, you did not have these rights. The Bill of rights did not start to apply to the States, and the citizens of those states, until 1833. Recently the 2nd amendment was finally applied to the individual in 2009. Again, societal change on an issue people are divided over.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
You are ignoring the anti Mexican factor in terms of prohibition of marijuana in Utah in 1915 which had as much to do with the issue as anything else. More importantly, your premise is once again that laws can be made based upon the majority support of the population, which flies directly in the face of the republics established to prevent majorities from trampling over the rights of minorities and individuals. This is a disturbing pattern with you and what I am addressing, not your views on slavery, but your cavalier attitudes about the whimsical nature of legislatures.

and you are ignoring the fact the laws were passed by American Citizens, and not the Mexican nationals they are referring to. You go on to prove my point about how societal change happens, in the manner it happens, and how it changes over time. California outlawed it for other reasons, but most states followed suit with Utah.

It would be no different than the stupid ass Red Communist scare during the 50's and a list that belong to Joe Mcarthy.

The idea of the Republic is still the same. The setup of our Government does allow for majority rule (since we arent a democracy but a representative republic, the people elected to office make those decisions on behalf of the people - we already have seen this doesn't always work out). It doesn't trample over the minority, it allows the minority opinion to be heard.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Stare decisis is a legal term which means "to stand by that which is decided". The Constitution has remained largely the same today as it was when it was written with only 27 Amendments added to that Constitution since it was written, and the first ten, being the Bill of Rights were added very shortly after it was written to make clear to the federal government that certain rights were not to be messed with. Among those Bill of Rights is the 9th Amendment which makes perfectly clear that rights not enumerated are still rights, and virtually all state Constitutions make the same assertion within their Declaration of Rights.

Correct, which supports my argument about slavery, the Souths economy, and the Civil war. Also again I point out the Bill of Rights did not officially apply to the states until 1833, and from that point out it was through legal cases. The 14th amendment, equal protection under the law, was passed in 1866, applying the bulk of the remaining amendments to the states.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Judicial Review in American jurisprudence is the legal concept that the courts have jurisdiction in weighing the constitutionality of legislation, and the power to strike down any legislation that does not conform with the Constitution.

You kind of defeat your own argument here since the Judicial Branch was never given the authority of Judicial review. The court took that power and no one stopped them, and I am glad that happened because Its invaluable.
At the time the laws were passed to outlaw Marijuana, there were no Federal Laws in place, so by extension its up to the states. We see this exact argument today in the West, with the States where their citizens have allowed marijuana, and the Federal Government trying to assert its authority to control it through the CSA, Commerce Clause and the Supremacy clause. If it goes to the USSC I do not expect the Federal Government to win, as I feel this is a states right issue.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Your vague and cavalier language you are using to either state directly or imply that as long as a majority believes it is okay to enact a law this makes it fine and dandy, and there is nothing people can do about it except hope that social mores change in time is not at all an accurate reflection of American jurisprudence.

Go back and read what i'm saying. I am not saying the action were right, I am saying at the time, it is what it is. The Majority of people wanted things one way, the minority did not, and in the end majority ruled. To go further though, you can take notice that the majority of Americans in the Southern States did not want Blacks to go to school, eat, ride with etc blacks.

The Federal Government took exception to this, passed laws and told the South to sit down and shut up. So yes, even when the majority of people approve it for whatever reason, does not always mean the majority rules. The key in this though, is the majority ruled to get it in the first place.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Further, unless you can provide statistics showing that the majority of Americans supported slavery at the time of its founding, we have only your word to take that slavery was viewed as "a good idea" by "the people". Most people did not own slaves in America when it was founded.

Best I can do at a moments notice - Aboliionism

Abolitionism is a movement to end human slavery.

In western Europe and the Americas abolitionism was a movement to end the slave trade and set slaves free. The slave system aroused little protest until the 17th century[citation needed] when Quaker and evangelical religious groups condemned it as un-Christian and the 18th century, when rationalist thinkers of the Enlightenment criticized it for violating the rights of man. Though anti-slavery sentiments were widespread by the late 18th century, they had little immediate effect on the centers of slavery: the West Indies, South America, and the Southern United States. The Somersett's case in 1772 that emancipated slaves in England, helped launch the movement to abolish slavery. Pennsylvania passed An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery in 1780. Britain banned the importation of African slaves in its colonies in 1807, and the United States followed in 1808. Britain abolished slavery throughout the British Empire with the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, the French colonies abolished it 15 years later, while slavery in the United States was abolished in 1865 with the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Even further, unless you can provide statistical data that shows that a vast majority of people supported drug prohibition laws when they were legislated, we still only have your word to take for it. Finding such statistical information will be difficult for you, but we can look at the history of the prohibition of alcohol and its subsequent repeal to know that most people did not support that prohibition, and we can further look at all the years of drug prohibition with many statistical reports citing that a huge percentage of the population has tried an illicit drug at least once, to know that prohibition of it is not as popular as you are suggesting it is.

Again correct. An amendment was passed by the Government that the people did not agree with, and in the end, the citizens won, zn the amendment was repealed. As far as stats go I am not finding any. When I do I will make a separate post for you. Most of the info I come across states the majority of the citizens in Utah, IE Mormons, passed it. The religion also banned the use of it, in addition to coffee, caffeine, etc. Since Utah was not a state at the time, the city governments / town governments were the law.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The United States of America was founded on the rejection of tyranny as a valid form of government and the Declaration of Independence written to justify the Revolution, made clear that usurpation's of government by tyrants was not acceptable. You can argue that the people want drug prohibition until the cows come home, more and more evidence is appearing that this is just not true, and the people want to end this drug war, and see a much saner policy in place. I suggest we find some common ground and discuss what that saner policy might be, instead of you defending whimsical legislation as an acceptable form of law.

Again I have no idea what the heck you are talking about. I have stated many times that the drug laws need to be revamped, with Marijuana being decriminalized along with a few other drugs but not all of them. Its evident the people are wanting change, as we see out west. I also stated that this issue will eventually come to the USSC with the conflict being States Rights over Federal Government Laws on the matter.

I think their is a majority of Americans who support the Marijuana issue. As for Meth, Cocaine, PCP, ecstasy etc I am not seeing an overwhelming voice of the people shouting for change on these types of drugs. If you have stats that say otherwise post em.

Thanks and Good night.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I post this here so it doesn't get lost in my wall of text above, and its meant as a compliment.

As a side note you irritate the crap out of me, and your arguments make me want to bang my head into the wall, but only because you make some valid points that I did not see. You argue your points well, even if I don't agree with them, and I am sure there is the irritation and head banging on your side towards me as well.

Either or Thanks for the debate. I appreciate it and the opportunity to learn something new.

Thank you

reply to post by Xcathdra

You are going off on an issue and using it in the wrong context, and in the process you are quoting me without placing it in proper context. So yes, you are misleading in the response as to what I said and the context it ws meant in.

I did not bring up slavery to justify legislation you did. The context of this thread is, of course, the decriminalization of certain behavioral acts, and you are defending the criminalization of certain drug usage. Part of your defense is the claim that this is what the people want, or see it as a "good idea" and to support this claim, you asserted that in the past, people saw slavery as "a good idea". I am challenging this assertion of yours as not being historically accurate. Neither slavery, nor drug prohibition were popular movements in the United States.

Slavery was a contentious issue in the politics of the United States from the 1770s through the 1860s, becoming a topic of debate in the drafting of the Constitution; a subject of Federal legislation such as the ban on the trans-Atlantic slave trade and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850; and a subject of landmark Supreme Court cases, such as the Dred Scott decision. Slaves resisted the institution through rebellions and non-compliance, and escaped it through travel to non-slave states and Canada, facilitated by the Underground Railroad. Advocates of abolitionism engaged in moral and political debates, and encouraged the creation of Free Soil states as Western expansion proceeded.

en.wikipedia.org...

Being a contentious issue among non slaves, and given that slaves themselves resisted slavery through rebellions and non compliance, your contention that people saw slavery as a "good idea" seems to be ignorant of the history of slavery in the United States.

Of the 27 million whites counted in the 1860 census, 8 million lived in the slave owning states of the South. Of these, 385,000 owned slaves. Statistically, 4.8% of all Southern whites owned slaves. When factored by the entire population, 1.4% of all United States whites were slave owners. The Gone With the Wind notion that most Southerners owned large numbers of slaves and lived in huge plantations is a myth. Read more at Suite101: The 1860 Census and Slavery in the United States: Interpreting Census Data and Research on Pre-Civil War Slavery www.suite101.com...

www.suite101.com...

Out of the total population in 1860 in the United States, only 1.4% of Americans owned slaves, and in the Southern States, where slavery was so prevalent, only 4.8% of the population actually owned slaves. Hardly a social movement where the people thought slavery was a "good idea".

I brought up the societal change slavery had. I never used slavery as a justification for anything, so please go back and read what I type. I was drawing parallels to what a society has to do to move an issue that was once considered legal/illegal to the opposite spectrum.. I also brought up civil rights, gays, etc to show the same societal changes were present.

I have read what you typed, and read it clearly where you argued that people thought slavery was a "good idea". It is pointless to take me to task for your own failures in communication. Had you made the argument that in spite of popular resistance to slavery, it existed anyway, and it took huge strides by both black and white people to get a small proportion of the population to stop abrogating and derogating the rights of people in the form of slavery, we wouldn't even be having this argument right now, but that is not what you argued, and instead wrote what you did.

Then you need to go back and brush up on US history. Before we became a nation, we were under British, and Spanish Rule (Florida) where slavery was legal by both countries, which at the time meant our colonies. When we had our war of insurrection, only the Federal Government was set up. The argument was to abolish slavery. The South took issues with this because unlike the North, which was industrialized, the South was still agricultural, and their livelihood was dependent upon this.

No, my friend, it is you who needs to go back and brush up on U.S. history. The United States of America was never, ever under British rule, and Florida was not admitted into the Union until March 3rd of 1845. Prior to the formation of the United States, there were 13 colonies that were not known as The United States of America but were known by the names they still have today, they being Virginia, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maine, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Connecticut, Maryland, Georgia, North Carolina and New Hampshire. These 13 colonies were under British rule, never Spanish rule, and in 1774, after rejecting the authority of Parliament of Great Britain, and expelled all royal officials, then they became the United States.

Contrary to what you claim, the federal government was not established until 1791, when the last of the 13 states ratified the Constitution for the United States of America which was adopted in 1787. The Revolution for Independence was officially declared in 1776, eleven years earlier, so your claim that "only the federal government was set up" is woefully erroneous. What was set up was a Provincial Congress, (1774), and in 1775 a Second Continental Congress, but neither were a part of the federal government you are speaking of, and instead there was an alliance between the thirteen states all acting as sovereign states in the name of self governance, and in defiance of British rule.

Before the adoption of the Constitution for the United States of America, in 1781 the thirteen states adopted The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, which established a considerably weaker national government than the federal government established by Constitution. For example, the Congress under the Articles of Confederation, Congress could make decisions but had no authority to enforce those decisions and had no power of taxation, and could only ask for financial support from the states. The states were not legally obligated to comply under the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation did, however, establish the name The United States of America.

The states each had their own authority and were not under any compunction by a federal government until the adoption and ratification of the Constitution for the United States of America.

Further, while I assert that slavery was by no means a popular movement during the founding of the U.S., it was most assuredly a grim realty, but your claim that there was talk of abolishing it upon adoption of the Constitution is not true. There was philosophical resistance to it, and debate over it, but the abolition of slavery on a federal level did not begin until about 1830. There was no compromise that was made in terms of "phasing out slavery" as you claim, and the compromises made in the Constitution is the "three-fifths" compromise where the Southern slave sates were allowed to count their slaves as "three fifths of a person" in terms of apportionment in choosing Representatives for Congress.

This "three fifths" compromise never directly mentions slavery, and there is also the matter of Article I, Section 9 where Congress is limited in:

Section 9: The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

However, it was not as if the Southern states agreed that after 1808 they would end slavery. What was agreed, was that the transatlantic slave trade would be abolished. And Congress enacted a law in 1807 to prohibit the importation of slaves which took effect on January of 1808, and by the time it took effect, every state in the Union with the sole exception of South Carolina, had all ready abolished the slave trade. However, slavery itself was not abolished, nor was there any agreement it would be by the Southern states.

If slavery were already illegal as you are claiming, why the need to out law it?

I expressly argued that slavery was never legal in the United States, and at one point said that based upon the Declaration of Rights in the State Constitutions it is arguable that it was illegal. I have made perfectly clear what it means to be legal, and you can blah, blah, blah, yaketty yak, yak, yak, all you want, you will not ever be able to find a single state Constitution declaring slavery legal. However, based upon State Constitution Declaration of Rights, there is a strong legal argument that slavery was illegal. Consider the following:

Paragraph I. Life, liberty, and property.
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property except by due process of law.

Constitution of Georgia

There is no due process of law in Georgia's Constitution declaring slavery legal, so the deprivation of liberty for the people held as slaves is expressly illegal by this Constitution.

Section 1. Equality and rights of men.

That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Virginia Constitution

Acknowledging that all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, and making clear that life and liberty cannot be deprived by any compact, there is a strong legal argument that slavery was illegal in Virginia.

Section 1. The equality and rights of persons.

We hold it to be self-evident that all persons are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor, and the pursuit of happiness.

North Carolina Constitution

All persons being created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor, and the pursuit of happiness, there is a strong legal argument that slavery in North Carolina was illegal.

These are just three examples of state Constitutions that in no way proclaim slavery to be legal, and on the contrary declare that people are endowed with inalienable rights. So, when you ask why the need to outlaw slavery, I ask you the same...why the need to outlaw something that clearly was unconstitutional to begin with? Care to defend the Southern States on this, and explain to everyone how slaves were not really people?

Why did we fight the civil war?

I respectfully submit we did so because people were too obsessed with arguing that some people were not entitled to inalienable rights and that this was an affront to people who understood that as long as people openly and brazenly enslaved other people, that freedom and inalienable rights would never be respected as they should be. Ironically, here we are today, where it is perfectly clear that inalienable rights are given no respect at all, but civil rights are spoken of with great reverence. If we fight another civil war in this country, why do you think that will be?

Also, when we ceded from England, what laws do you think we were using?

Are you suggesting that the Declaration of Independence is based upon the Divine Right Doctrine that gave the King of England his authority?

We continued to use English Common Law, and we still use it to this day (except for Louisiana).

More than just English Common Law, we rely upon Common Law since time immemorial, which is why many of our legal terms are Latin phrases. But make no mistakes about this, while some aspects of English Common Law are still used today, other aspects were roundly rejected from the very start of our Constitutional government, including Bills of Attainder's, and general search warrants.

The only error in judgment I made was the assumption people would A; Understand their countries History

You are operating on the false assumption that you understand your own country's history. You clearly don't.

B. See the Societal change argument and understand it

Your "societal change" argument is based upon the premise that slavery was a popular movement, as opposed to the elitist industry that it actually was, and your attempt to link slavery to the drug prohibition laws would have had some merit if you had argued that once again elitist tyrants had usurped the will of the people in order to profit for themselves, but instead you argue that drug prohibition legislation is a popular movement supported by the people.

C. Use common sense to apply it to how society viewed drugs, how they view it now, and see the societal change in progress.

As if this is what you've done instead of creating the fantasy tale you have of mass popular movements of slavery and drug prohibition.

D. The descriptions are valid, and I would use these historical comparisons as they are key in understanding how a society develops morals / beliefs / what have you in order to effect change in a society that that is fearful of change.

Your historical descriptions are not anywhere near accurate unless you think history only applies to the ruling elite, and that the masses are just fodder to be disregarded and expendable for pleasure of the some delusional ruling elite class. You know, there is a strong perception by many people in the U.S. that police officers are nothing more than private security guards for the rich. Gee, I wonder why they get that impression.

Where are you coming up with this stuff? It was legal to possess, sell and smoke in the United States, as well as the colonies while we were singing God Save the Queen. In the early colonies not growing it could land you in trouble. Back then, in addition to just smoking it, it was used for other key things at the time, like rope, cloth etc.

I will continue to say this until you get it through your thick head, what is legal is so because a proclamation of legislation, statute or ordinance has declared it legal. If there is no proclamation declaring something legal, nor prohibiting it, it is neither legal nor illegal, but is outside the purview of law. I am becoming convinced that you are purposely ignoring these assertions I make because they do not serve your purpose. I will again make clear why it is important to make the distinction between what's legal, and what is outside the purview of law.

UNALIENABLE RIGHTS ARE NOT LEGAL RIGHTS, THEY ARE RIGHTS GRANTED BY OUR CREATOR, AND CANNOT BE GIVEN TO US BY ANY GOVERNMENT. CONVERSELY, GOVERNMENTS DO NOT EXIST BY ANY CREATOR OUTSIDE OF WE THE PEOPLE AND WHATEVER RIGHTS THEY HAVE ARE LEGAL RIGHTS, NOT INALIENABLE RIGHTS.

It is legal for Congress to pass legislation that conforms with the Constitution for the United States of America, and it is legal for the President of the United States to enforce those laws, and for the Supreme Court to interpret them. It is illegal for Congress to make any laws that abridge speech, the exercise of religion, the press, and other specific rights.

To speak freely is not legal, it is a right. Do you understand? I do not speak freely, nor do I publish, or worship in the religious manner I do because it is legal, I do so by right!

Conversely, if I wish to run for Congress, I do no do so by right, but by legal privilege, and I only do so under the due process of law hat allows me to do so. If I wish to run for President, I can only do so if I am American citizen, then and only then do I have the legal privilege to run for President. However, that which is done by right, all people have the right to do it and do not need to be an American citizen in order to enjoy the protection of that right.

While I vehemently disagree with the states assertions that "driving is a privilege and not a right", this assertion is a perfect example of a legal action, in American jurisprudence. It is legal to drive, but illegal to drive without a license. I live my life not because it is legal to do so, but because it is my right to do so. I breathe air not because it is legal to do so but because it is my right to do so. I pursue happiness not because it is legal to do so, but because it is my right to do so.

If you cannot understand this distinction, then you do not understand what inalienable rights mean.

Just because there is not a law that makes it legal, doesn't make it illegal either.

I am not claiming that if there isn't a law making it legal, then it is illegal. I am asserting that if there isn't a law declaring something legal, or declaring it illegal, then it is not a legal matter at all. My right to speak freely is not a legal matter. If I use speech to slander a person, then it becomes a legal matter. I do not worship in a religious manner because it is a legal matter, but if I use my religious beliefs to justify human sacrifice then it becomes a legal matter.

And I would point out that at the State level, you did not share have these rights. The Bill of rights did not start to apply to the States, and the citizens of those states, until 1833. Recently the 2nd amendment was finally applied to the individual in 2009. Again, societal change on an issue people are divided over.

You are willfully ignoring the Declaration of Rights of all State Constitutions, and have been steadfastly doing this for several pages in this thread now. The SCOTUS decision regarding the 2nd Amendment was in regards to a Washington D.C. law that prohibited guns. Washington D.C. is not a state, and does not have any Constitution. There are several State Constitutions that expressly enumerate the right to keep and bear arms:

SEC. 23. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the State.

Alabama Constitution

26. Bearing arms Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

Arizona Constitution

The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms, for their common defense. Read more: vlex.com...

Arizona Constitution

§ 19. Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Alaska Constitution

§ 20. Right to keep and bear arms. Section 20. A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.

Delaware Constitution

These are just a few examples. There are actually 44 State Constitutions with provisions for the right to keep and bear arms.

www.saf.org...

The State of California of which I live is one of the few states that does not expressly list the right to keep and bear arms but Section 1 expressly makes clear all people have inalienable rights, and Section 24 makes clear that "This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny
others retained by the people"

It is deeply disturbing that a law enforcement officer so willingly gives short shrift to the State Constitutions, particularly since it is fairly assumed you as an officer of the law, live in one of those states.

and you are ignoring the fact the laws were passed by American Citizens, and not the Mexican nationals they are referring to.

No I am not, and your jingoism is irrelevant. I am speaking to your incessant insistence that Utah passed the first prohibition on marijuana because they were Mormons. The fact of the matter was that there was a strong anti-Mexican sentiment, and it was Mexicans who were closely associated with the wacky weed:

In Utah, for example, the nation's first statewide prohibition of marijuana 14 in 1915 was attended by little publicity. The combination of increasing Mexican immigration and the traditional aversion of the Mormons to euphoriants of any kind16 led inevitably to the inclusion of marijuana in the state's omnibus narcotics and pharmacy bill.

www.druglibrary.org...

It was not Mormonism alone that led to the Utah prohibition, it was the anti-Mexican immigration sentiment that helped fuel it.

You go on to prove my point about how societal change happens, in the manner it happens, and how it changes over time. California outlawed it for other reasons, but most states followed suit with Utah.

Contrary to proving your point, about "societal change" leading to an anti marijuana initiative by the people, it was the combination of Mormon's aversion to euphoric substances and the entire states anti Mexican views that led to the prohibition of marijuana. That anti Mexican immigration is just as strong today as it was in 1915, and not a damn thing has changed in that regard, nor have the Mormons changed their stance on euphoric states. Everything remains the same, and the only thing that changed is that prior to 1915 marijuana was not the source of any legal measures.

Correct, which supports my argument about slavery, the Souths economy, and the Civil war.

Not even close, and once again you are wrong. Stare decisis, nor the fact that the Constitution has remained largely unchanged does not at all support your argument, which you are at this moment responding to my reply to your assertion that laws are continually changing, and I made the point that our Constitution hasn't really, and that stare decisis is a long standing legal principle. It certainly doesn't hold water with your claim that stare decisis supports your argument about slavery, and I suggest you read up on the Dred Scot ruling.

Also again I point out the Bill of Rights did not officially apply to the states until 1833, and from that point out it was through legal cases.

This disingenuous disregard for State Constitutions and their undeniable legal weight is inexcusable. Only an ignorant fool will buy into your propaganda that only the federal Constitution applies in terms of rights.

The 14th amendment, equal protection under the law, was passed in 1866, applying the bulk of the remaining amendments to the states.

The 14th Amendment was never necessary, as each state had Declaration of Rights that applied to all persons. Again, your blatant disregard for State Constitutions is shameful.

You kind of defeat your own argument here since the Judicial Branch was never given the authority of Judicial review. The court took that power and no one stopped them, and I am glad that happened because Its invaluable.

I don't know what argument you think I am defeating, but I will tell you this, judicial review is most assuredly implied in the Constitution, and given Congress has been expressly forbidden to make certain laws, and if the President foolishly signs those forbidden legislative acts into law, then it falls to the courts to strike the laws down, for surely if they don't then it falls to the people to take their arms and legally overthrow the usurpers that have so willfully disobeyed the Supreme Law of the Land.

At the time the laws were passed to outlaw Marijuana, there were no Federal Laws in place, so by extension its up to the states.

What sort of outrageous double speak is this? It is not up to either the states nor the federal government to whimsically make people criminals based upon personal choices that do not cause any other person harm.

We see this exact argument today in the West, with the States where their citizens have allowed marijuana, and the Federal Government trying to assert its authority to control it through the CSA, Commerce Clause and the Supremacy clause.

IT IS NOT UP TO THE STATES, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, NOR THE PEOPLE TO DECLARE PERSONAL BEHAVIOR THAT CAUSES NO DEMONSTRABLE HARM A CRIME!

If it goes to the USSC I do not expect the Federal Government to win, as I feel this is a states right issue.

It is an inalienable rights issue.

Go back and read what i'm saying. I am not saying the action were right, I am saying at the time, it is what it is. The Majority of people wanted things one way, the minority did not, and in the end majority ruled.

Under the Constitutional Republics, both federal and state, the majority does not have any right to abrogate and derogate the rights of individuals.

To go further though, you can take notice that the majority of Americans in the Southern States did not want Blacks to go to school, eat, ride with etc blacks.

THE MAJORITY DOES NOT HAVE ANY LEGAL RIGHT TO ABROGATE AND DEROGATE THE RIGHTS OF ANY INDIVIDUAL REGARDLESS OF THEIR RACE, RELIGION, OR CREED.

The Federal Government took exception to this, passed laws and told the South to sit down and shut up.

All the federal government had to do was rely on the laws that all ready existed.

So yes, even when the majority of people approve it for whatever reason, does not always mean the majority rules. The key in this though, is the majority ruled to get it in the first place.

The majority all too often uses its weight to illegally oppress the minority, and you do not help the situation by arguing this is perfectly acceptable and there is nothing we can legally do about it until some change in perception comes along and new legislation is enacted. There are all ready laws in place, and have been from the get go, that protect the rights of individuals.

Best I can do at a moments notice - Aboliionism

I have all ready supplied statistics that show that less than 5% of the population owned slaves, in the Southern States, and less than 25 of the population owned slaves across the land, by the time the abolition movement began. The vast majority of people living in the United States when it became the United States did not own slaves, and there is no indication at all that in general they thought it was a "good idea".

Again correct. An amendment was passed by the Government that the people did not agree with, and in the end, the citizens won, zn the amendment was repealed. As far as stats go I am not finding any. When I do I will make a separate post for you. Most of the info I come across states the majority of the citizens in Utah, IE Mormons, passed it.

I have also looked for stats regarding the Mormons and prohibition of marijuana, and even stats to find out the percentage of Mormons versus other people in Utah at that time, but it is proving to be quite difficult. Good luck on our part, and I will keep trying to.

Again I have no idea what the heck you are talking about. I have stated many times that the drug laws need to be revamped, with Marijuana being decriminalized along with a few other drugs but not all of them.

Here is what I am talking about, in no uncertain terms; if an action does not cause any other person harm, then it is a right, an inalienable right that belongs to the people, not by legislative fiat, but it is granted by a far higher authority than any man or woman. Smoking marijuana does not cause any other person harm and as such is a right and does not need any "decriminalization". Shooting up; heroin, as stupid as that may be, does not cause other people harm, and as such, is an inalienable right. Using "meth", as stupid as that may be, does not, in and of itself, cause any other person harm, and as such is an inalienable right. Because they are rights, no government, regardless of the support it may have from a majority, has the legal right to impair or deny those rights.

Its evident the people are wanting change, as we see out west. I also stated that this issue will eventually come to the USSC with the conflict being States Rights over Federal Government Laws on the matter.

If the state and federal governments do not back off, and begin acknowledging and reaffirming the inalienable rights of people, the whole States Rights thing is going to get really nasty. The States Rights issue is affirmed by the 10th Amendment which follows the 9th Amendment, which is an Individuals Rights issue.

I think their is a majority of Americans who support the Marijuana issue. As for Meth, Cocaine, PCP, ecstasy etc I am not seeing an overwhelming voice of the people shouting for change on these types of drugs. If you have stats that say otherwise post em.

I don't need support of any majority in order to know what my rights are. I have always found it patently absurd that Americans are all too willing to acquiesce to the surrender of inalienable rights on all number of issues, but will not readily acquiesce on issues of drinking booze and doing drugs. Not that I am saying people should acquiesce to prohibition on booze and drugs, I am saying that people should not acquiesce to any abrogation and/or derogation of a right.

I honestly think that part of the problem, and why so many individuals have found it difficult to rely on the courts to have their rights protected is that they have foolishly relied on representation by the priest class lawyer set who are in a large part responsible for much of the legislation on the books today.

Lawyers are members of the BAR Association, and as such are licensed to practice and must abide by rules and regulations not set by Constitution, but instead set by them.

A person who has been charged with a crime does not need representation from an attorney while sitting right next to that attorney in a court of law. Competent assistance of counsel? Sure. Representation? What the hell for? He or she is sitting right next to the attorney for crying out loud.

An attorney is prevented by rules to argue for jury nullification. A defendant is not obligated to those rules, and has a right to ask a jury to acquit him or her based upon the unconstitutionality of the legislation.

The more we get back to this sort of justice, the sooner you will see evidence that the majority of people have no interest in imprisoning a person just because he uses drugs. Judges inform juries that they must judge only the facts of the case, but this is, in effect, a directed verdict if a person is up against legislation that provides no victim, but can easily provide evidence as fact. If a person relies on an attorney to defend them as a representative, instead of simply defending themselves, that lawyer will not correct the mistake the judge has made and inform the jury they have the right to judge the law as well.

When defendants begin defending themselves and asking juries directly to judge the legislation and in doing so realize the facts are irrelevant, then this will expedite the "societal" change you are talking about.

Thanks and Good night.

Good night to you too my brother.

i hate to say this 10 pages in, but isn't 'decriminalization' just politician talk used to make you think they're going to change a policy, but really they aren't

such as, i know Obama has been quoted saying he wants to 'decriminalize' marijuana, but that doesn't mean he wants to 'legalize' it at all, it's just a political ruse used for two reasons:

the people who want it legalized will either think he MEANS legalizations (but he doesn't), or they will settle for it thinking that at least 'decriminalization is a move towards legalization eventually ( when really it doesn't change any policies or move in any direction )

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Smoking marijuana does not cause any other person harm and as such is a right and does not need any "decriminalization". Shooting up; heroin, as stupid as that may be, does not cause other people harm, and as such, is an inalienable right. Using "meth", as stupid as that may be, does not, in and of itself, cause any other person harm, and as such is an inalienable right. Because they are rights, no government, regardless of the support it may have from a majority, has the legal right to impair or deny those rights.

Shooting up heroin or meth is not a crime. Posessing heroin and meth without proper license is a crime, because it may lead to criminal behaviour and cause harm to others. Just like manufacturing of poisons and dangerous chemicals without license is a crime, posessing full-auto or military weapons without license is a crime even if you harmed noone with them yet, driving a car wihout license is a crime, speeding is a crime, threatening, regulation of banks and accounting and so on.. All these are PREVENTIVE laws which prevent you from being able to harm others, even if you have not harmed anyone yet by breaching them. And I see nothing wrong with them. By your logic, we should abolish all mentioned preventive regulations because noone was harmed yet when the crime happened. Is that what you are advocating?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
It is in reference to drugs, and not the wholesale slaughter of people, groups etc. There is a difference between the 2, and this is no longer the 1930-40's.

There is a difference.

But putting millions of innocent people in prison and ruining their live is an atrocity.

Originally posted by Maslo
All these are PREVENTIVE laws which prevent you from being able to harm others, even if you have not harmed anyone yet by breaching them. And I see nothing wrong with them. By your logic, we should abolish all mentioned preventive regulations because noone was harmed yet when the crime happened. Is that what you are advocating?

Regulations are fine.

The problem is the militant and violent "War on Drugs" that attacks nonviolent violators of regulation.

Putting people in prison because they have recreational drugs is insane and dangerous.

It has caused many problems for society.

It is why the cartels in Mexico are so power. It fuels criminals with an extremely profitable market; in turn it creates violence.

It creates ignorance about drugs and this facilitates abuse and addiction with all drugs but especially legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco.

It has created a criminal industrial complex that profits from private prisons.

It has wasted billions of dollars and resources while imprisoning millions of innocent people.

Let's not forget all the countries like Mexico that have been destabilized because of it.

---

The solution is fighting the emotional and psychological issues that cause self destructive behavior. This violent and extreme war has not decreased drug use because it does not deal with the problem, it only creates violence and imprisons people. You can't deal with addiction by threatening people with prison; it simply doesn't work and history shows this.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Dude you are just spamming this thread. I almost want to believe you are a disinfo agent. I'm not going to provide links proving drug offenders serve time in maximum security prisons because it is futile with a thread spammer.

What Rosa Parks did was not criminal, breaking an immoral/inhumane law is not criminal!

reply to post by jrod


That would be because you cant find the info. I didn't spam anything, I made some historical parallels about change in society and others wanted to latch on to a slavery issue and put words in my mouth.

Read up on sentencing guidelines by states, and see how previous criminal convictions help determine where they go. Once they get to prison, read up on how those inmates are classified by the system and where they go within that system. The argument you are making, people going to maximum security for just drugs, is misleading. Find me one case where someone went to a maximum security Prison based solely off of a drug charge, and provided the background info about the case, including prior criminal history, which is used in sentencing.

Also, look up the difference between a Felony, Misdemeanor, and High Court Misdemeanor, and what the differences are between the 3 based on length of incarceration. That will also answer your other questions and arguments.

Dis info agent.. wtf?? I have argued for decriminalization of certain drugs. I have stated the war on drugs is a joke and needs to be changed. What dis info am I putting out?

@ Jean Paul Zodeaux

Your argument was slavery was never legal in the United States, and it never occurred in the United States. The constitutions / guiding documents that most colonies used allowed and enforced slavery. Please go back and look at their charters going back to the 1600's.

Check out the Missouri Compromise, the addition of Texas to the Union, and the issues Kansas had about slavery.

The U.S.Constitution, Article I section 3 established the 3/5 clause. Its referring to slavery, no matter how you attempt to ignore and spin it as meaning something else. If you take a look at the Articles of Confederation, there were 2 amendments there people wanted that dealt with... wait for it.. Slavery, and how many people they would be considered.

The other link s your provided about State Constitutions are either way pass the dates we are talking about, or are current. The 14th amendment applied the bulk of the Amendments to the States. The 2nd amendment was recently applied to the individual because of Washington DC and Chicago Laws on guns.

Please learn your History before you argue people about it.

The topic is Oregon county decriminalizes heroin, meth, coc aine and shoplifting. This was done to due staff cuts of 27%. The side argument was should drugs be decriminalized in the United States, with several comments about Portugal's Law and how its working.

Portugal's Law decriminalizes based on treatment. If you don't take the treatment, you can still be fined and still receive a jail sentence.

People then talked about decriminalization here in the States. That conversation lead into what is accepted socially in terms of being ok and not being ok. I gave examples of incidents in our Nations History (Slavery, Civil Rights, Drugs, Gay, etc) that affected everyone, just as drugs do, and how the thinking was at the time by people, and what was considered ok at the time of occurrence. I continued to state that societal change moved us beyond these parts of our History, noting that what was once considered acceptable, is no longer acceptable.

Drugs were allowed way back in the day. Marijuana was a required crop in Virginia because of its ability to be used as cloth, rope etc. Utah, namely the Mormons, passed a law outlawing marijuana. Why did this happen, because at the time Utah was not a State, had no state government, which means the settlements could do what they wanted. It was passed on religious grounds (just like coffee, caffeine etc were outlawed at the same time).

California (actually there were first in outlawing marijuana) and several other states followed suit. The Federal Government created the FDA during this time, and these drugs were placed under its control, at which point the medical qualities of drugs were looked at, which decided if they would be sold or not.

The drugs were classified as illegal. Throughout the years, society has slowly changed their view on certain drugs, namely marijuana, and it has slowly worked its way back in as being acceptable.

The others have not.

Decriminalization based on Portugal's setup I think would work here. Outright decriminalization of all drugs not so much. The setup in Oregon is interesting, but will eventually get them in trouble with the State AG's office for failing to perform their duty when one of the cases gets dropped and something happens that shouldn't'.

The hope that all drugs will become legal is a pipedream (pun intended) with the current societal view on drugs.

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by Xcathdra
It is in reference to drugs, and not the wholesale slaughter of people, groups etc. There is a difference between the 2, and this is no longer the 1930-40's.

There is a difference.

But putting millions of innocent people in prison and ruining their live is an atrocity.

Please point out where under current law they are innocent? The people who did the drugs knew the consequences, and in the end decided to do a drug that was illegal.

When drug laws are changed, you can make the argument innocent lives were destroyed. Until that time, it is what it is.

reply to post by Jezus



Again this is where part of the argument confuses me. Possession of Marijuana, less than 35g is a Misdemeanor, meaning you can spend no more than up to 1 year in jail. Felony you are looking at more than one year in jail. The people you guys keep referring to, the ones going to big boy jail for simple posession, tells me its not their first encounter with the Criminal Justice System.

Can you show me a case where someone who was sentenced to Prison based solely off a simple drug charge? Criminal History is taken into account during sentencing.

I have dealt with this system for over 10 years now, and what some people describe I have never seen.

reply to post by Xcathdra


How can you say you are not spamming this thread when 90% of the material is you?

I believe George Jung is still doing time in a max security prison for his role in smuggling drugs.

reply to post by jrod


He is in Federal Prison, not State Prison, on 3 counts of Conspiracy for smuggling over 1700 pounds of Marijuana. We can leave out his employment with the Medellín Cartel.

Sentenced to 15 years in Prison -

Placement:
Otisville Federal Correction Center - Medium Security
Federal Correctional Institution, La Tuna - Low Security

My responses are on topic and are answers to questions, or part of the ongoing back and forth. If you don't want to read them that's fine, you don't have to. Sorry if you feel its spam, as I felt it was relevant to the conversation about drug decriminalization, legalization, and society's involvement.

reply to post by Jezus


I agree with full legalization of soft safe drugs like marijuana, '___', mushrooms etc. I agree that we should target and punish the dealers of hard drugs more than victims - possesing certain small amount of hard drug should only be a minor offense. But I dont agree with outright decriminalization of all hard drugs. That is just absolutely insane IMHO. These substances are outlawed because they are toxic and very addictive poisons. I see no difference between outlawing hard drugs and outlawing other dangerous poisons.

Here is the DEA controlled substance / drug schedule listing.

DEA Controlled Substances / Drug Schedule

Expanded list - DEA Drug Schedule - Complete List

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Stats - 2004 based on reporting and sentencing

BJS has issued a data advisory on the State Court Processing Statistics Data Limitations. The advisory describes limitations of the data collection that must be considered when analyzing SCPS data, drawing any conclusions based on the data, and citing BJS reports.

Felony defendants
* In the nation's 75 largest counties, an estimated 58,100 defendants were charged with a felony offense in 2006.
* More than three-fourths of felony defendants had a prior arrest history, with 69% having multiple prior arrests.
* Fifty-eight percent of felony defendants in the nation's 75 largest counties were released prior to adjudication and about a third of the released defendants committed some form of pretrial misconduct.
* About two-thirds of felony defendants were eventually convicted and more than 95% of these convictions occurred through a guilty plea.
* Seventy percent of defendants convicted were incarcerated in a state prison or local jail. Felony convictions
* State and federal courts convicted a combined total of nearly 1,145,000 adults of felonies in 2004. Of these felony convictions, an estimated 1,079,000 adults were convicted in state courts and 66,518 were convicted in federal courts, accounting for 6% of the national total.
* In 2004, 70% of all felons convicted in state courts were sentenced to a period of confinement in a state prison (40%) or a local jail (30%).

Jail sentences are short-term confinement (usually less than 1 year) in a county or city facility. Prison sentences are long-term confinement (usually 1 year or more) in a state facility.
* Prison sentences handed down by state courts in 2004 averaged almost 5 years .

Felony Convictions in State Court - 2006

Year Felony Convictions Percentage Incarcerated Non-Incarcerated
1990 829340 71% 29%
1994 872220 71 29
1998 927720 68 32
2002 1051000 69 31
2006 1132290 69 31

reply to post by Maslo

Shooting up heroin or meth is not a crime. Posessing heroin and meth without proper license is a crime, because it may lead to criminal behaviour and cause harm to others.

Your Orwellian thought police mentality is offered is nothing more than offering up the logical fallacy of argument of adverse consequence. You appeal to peoples fear, and do so not by offering up any truth, but merely your opinion. There is absolutely no empirical data to support your contention that shooting up heroin or "meth" leads to crime.

Further, if you were so concerned about the causes that lead to crime, perhaps it would occur to you that by criminalizing heroin and "meth" use demonstrably leads to crime. If urination was criminalized every single person would become criminals under the legislation criminalizing it, but what led to this upsurge in crime was the legislation itself.

Just like manufacturing of poisons and dangerous chemicals without license is a crime, posessing full-auto or military weapons without license is a crime even if you harmed noone with them yet, driving a car wihout license is a crime, speeding is a crime, threatening, regulation of banks and accounting and so on.

None of the actions you have described are, in and of themselves, criminal. Manufacturing poison has been something people have been doing for thousands of years and the uses for poisons include anti-venom and medicinal purposes, not to mention the extermination of pests, such as rats, and insects that can be harmful to humanity.

Poisons are also used by military's and government's as weapons. In fact, governments and their military's use poisons as a way to harm humans far more than private individuals use poisons for the same purpose. Most private individuals either use poison to rid themselves of harmful rodents, insects, and other animals, or for the purposes of anti-venom or other medicinal purposes. The manufacture of poison is not a crime. The reckless manufacture of poison may be a crime, but if it is, then a demonstrable victim is evident.

The entire purpose of the unalienable right to keep and bear arms is so that the people may protect their life, liberty and property. Among those the people may find necessary to protect themselves from, are tyrannical governments, including and especially their own. The 2nd Amendment was written to make clear that government had no right to infringe upon the peoples right to keep and bear arms. It did not make any qualifications on what was meant by arms, but made perfectly clear that infringement was expressly prohibited.

Driving an automobile is not a crime, and does not, in and of itself, produce any victim. Given the nature of State Constitutions and their Declaration of inalienable rights, and that virtually all of these Constitutions make clear that the enumeration of rights within those Constitutions can be construed to deny or impair other rights obtained by the people, the states declaring that driving is not a right is a dubious assertion. The people retain all rights, and the States have no legal authority to deny or impair those rights.

All these are PREVENTIVE laws which prevent you from being able to harm others, even if you have not harmed anyone yet by breaching them. And I see nothing wrong with them.

They obviously do nothing at all to PREVENT crime, but do everything to impair or deny people their unalienable rights, and since you see nothing wrong with that, then it is clear where you stand in regards to human rights.

By your logic, we should abolish all mentioned preventive regulations because noone was harmed yet when the crime happened. Is that what you are advocating?

I am advocating respect for the unalienable rights of all people, and by any standard of logic, an abrogation and/or derogation of a right is a crime. A real demonstrable crime that produces a victim, unlike your imaginary crimes where, at best, there may be a victim if peoples rights aren't denied or impaired, I am asserting that once you've impaired or denied people of their rights, you are most assuredly guilty of a crime...not maybe, not your tyranny will lead to crime...your tyranny is a crime.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by Xcathdra
It is in reference to drugs, and not the wholesale slaughter of people, groups etc. There is a difference between the 2, and this is no longer the 1930-40's.

There is a difference.

But putting millions of innocent people in prison and ruining their live is an atrocity.

Please point out where under current law they are innocent? The people who did the drugs knew the consequences, and in the end decided to do a drug that was illegal.

I never said they didn't break the law.

I said they were innocent people because (some of them) have done nothing immoral.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
When drug laws are changed, you can make the argument innocent lives were destroyed. Until that time, it is what it is.

Horrible horrible atrocities happen because of this mentality.

"In the End,
we will remember
not the words of our enemies,
but the silence of our friends."
- Martin Luther King, Jr.