To decriminalize everything:

[Equal Protection]

I propose the elimination of all laws forbidding one to place whatever substances they should so choose into their own body. (Or the posession of such substances)

I *also* propose the 'weighting' of ALL laws pertaining to crimes against person and property as it relates to drug influenced behavior.

Weighting, I said, not lightening. That means if you rob somebody out of the blue, you get xyz for potential time in prison, etc.

You do it while high on smack, crack, or whack (or whatever it is)...the you are to get an additional 'abc' added to the existing xyz punishment provided.

Easier perhaps, than amending all existing legislation in that arena, would be to simply add an appropriately-universally-applicable charge of '...and commiting such while under the influence of 'x'.'

Similarly for driving offenses.

There is to be no problem with taking judgement-inhibiting substances of any variety. But you willfully put yourself in such a state, and in so doing knowingly place your potential to bring harm to others, and their property, at a much higher level.

Once in that state, your judgement is to be questioned. But as always, you have a choice at some point beforehand as it relates to your future predicaments.

Make a stupid choice, and then make more of them as a result of it? Pay the price!

Or more plainly..."If you can't handle your faeces..."

;D

Decriminalize EVERYTHING plant and chemical intended for human consumption, or at least that is commonly understood to be used as such.

And keep the drug law 'effect.'

Do not criminalize an otherwise uncriminalous act, but rather penalize more strongly when an act is commited given the stronger(more dangerous) circumstances.

What say you, Conservative posters?

(Note that ultimately this would have to phased out, in the same way that Equal Protection provides for NO SUCH THING as a 'hate crime' (thus giving ^unequal protection to cetain groups under law...) so too is this flawed on a fundamental level. But until we can grow up a bit as a society, and make our laws 'about right' as it relates to all crimes in and of themselves...this is decent temporary patch)

[lordjulius7]

Sounds reasonable enough to me. personal freedom combined with personal responsibility.

[Favre]

I don't have a particular problem with the idea. I kind of see it as a culling the herd mentallity, the weak and stupid die off, thus leaving only the non idiots.

[Walter]

I agree with what you suggest...but you left out one very important item.

The left wants to establish the thinking behind the crime as a mitigator or enhancer of penalties to be assessed.

If you kill me, I'm dead.

If you did it while high on drugs as a lark, I'm just as dead.

If you did it because you hate the color of my skin, or the turban on my hand, or by the language I speak, I'm just as dead.

If you did it because I wouldn't give you my wallet, I'm just as dead.

Do away with victimless drug crimes. Do away with enhanced or mitigation of penalties based on your mental and/or contemplative state. Call it murder with penalties commensurate with the crime, not the state of mind of the perp.

[ItWillNeverWork]

I agree completley with what you are saying Walter in regards to crime being crime. But I think in some circumstances the state of mind the perptrator is in SHOULD be taken into consideration.

For example, If a person causes a fatal car accident whilst drunk then they should be punished more severley than if they were sober. This is because two acts of criminality have effectivley been commited. 1) The act of getting into a car whilst not being in control of ones faculties, i.e putting lives at risk 2) Causing the accident, i.e manslaughter.

Or for example if a criminal act is carried out by a person who is in need of psychiatric care then this person should be treated in a secure hospital until cured. Not simply put in prison.

My position on hate crime is different however. I am completley against any sort of prejudicial behavior but the concept of 'hate crime' is a very dangerous one and I will explain why.

It is a crime to kill someone, it is not a crime to think racist thoughts. So why is it MORE of a crime to kill someone whilst thinking racist thoughts? Surley to endorse such a law is to infer that the act of simply thinking a racist thought should be illegal aswell. This goes against all the basic fundamentals of a free and civilised society. The realm of private thinking, however repugnant the thoughts may be, is not an area where the state has a right to interfere.

[lordjulius7]

Walter, the trouble with your proposal is that if one looks at only the result one must either deal very harshly with low level offenders or very leniantly with the worst. If all causing of death is treated as one, then somebody who causes death through a minor act of carelessness at the wheel is treated the same as Ted Bundy.

[Walter]

ItWillNeverWork understands my point.

I believe that a "victimless "crime" (marijuana possession for example) is nonsense provided that the possessor did not commit a crime to obtain the weed.

However, if, LordJulius really believes:

If all causing of death is treated as one, then somebody who causes death through a minor act of carelessness at the wheel is treated the same as Ted Bundy.

then we're doomed.

How can a death be caused by a "minor act of carelessness?" I fail to check my rear view mirror and run over someone's child riding a bike. Is that a "minor act of carelessness?" At a minimum I should be charged with criminal negligence and involuntary vehicular manslaughter...not get a free pass just because it was a "minor act of carelessness."

The law provides a distinction based on the circumstances. If it can be proved that I intentionally sought out the kid and intentionally ran him/her over, then, yes, I should be treated as was Ted Bundy, that is, charged with 1st degree murder.

If it can be proved that I killed the kid through a "minor act of acrelessness" the law provides a lesser sentence.

But to think that I should be treated with care and compassion is a matter you might like to discuss with the kid's bereaved mom.

[Angmar]

The biggest problem with such substances is that they don't work fast enough--for instance, one could make the contents of a cigarette 70% cyanide and not even have to change the label. If people absolutely must have such substances, they man do so in the comfort of their own trailers, out of sight and mind.

[lordjulius7]

"But to think that I should be treated with care and compassion is a matter you might like to discuss with the kid's bereaved mom. "

Who possibly isn't the best person to make a dispassionate judgement. The law should judge on rational grounds, not emotion.

This is what I mean by a minor act of carelessness. Every day, thousands of people will forget to check their rear view mirror. There will be no consequences for almost every one of them. Half a dozen will be noticed by the police and get a small fine. Half a dozen will have a minor accident and pay out £200 for a new rear bumper. Two will hit another car and have an unfortunate and expensive fight with their insurance company. One will hit and kill a child and go to jail. Now, his offence differed from the other thousands in no way other than the consequences. It is neither fair nor rational to destroy somebodies life for sheer bad luck.

[colehartt]

I would add this.......Let the victims/families decide the punishment!

[lordjulius7]

Right...so if I rape and murder the daughter ofa pacifist I do community service. But if I kill the daughter of a vengeful chap in the slightest of accidents, I go to the gallows. That's a really serious way to run a criminal justice ststem...

[cupolaa5]

I believe drugs should be used to heal or provide some level of comfort to those that are ill. However I'm of the opinion that by legalizing drugs for recreational use is nothing more then numbing the masses! you can take it from there!