I think we're making progress - but I'm still looking at a few issues you bring up. As far as the quotes thingy, click quote (look above the box where you write your reply), and after you paste what I said, hit the quote button again.
OR you can just type {quote} what I said {/quote} and use brackets [] instead of the other ones {}.
If I tried to write it the other way, it would have boxed "what I said". Get it? http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Was your step-dad in police uniform? Undercover? Did this psycho have his blood content evaluated immediately after being arrested? Answers to these questions are necessary to determine whether the situation can be conclusively blamed on marijuana[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>Cripes. This is insane. Maybe this flies in the courtroom, but you're going to have to sell your legal argument down the street. I'm not about to get into a legal battle about my points. My points are based on the current law, common sense, and how I see it, can explain it, and justifty it. Weather or not the officer was in uniform or not doesn't make a whit of difference. Again, it might fly in court, but let's face it, court systems today truly protect the criminals and dismisses the victims. That is MY opinion, soley.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">as a criminal defense attorney, I know that my colleagues will try any tactics possible to show a jury that the accused is not the monster the alleged crime would have them believe[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I've been there, done that. A few years back, my car was broken into, I caught the guy and followed him to a residence. Found him, and called the cops on my cell phone. Had him arrested. After taking 7 different days off of work because of his attorney's "last minute extentions", (that would have dropped my case if, in any of them, I was a no-show) he got off because I was white, and he was hispanic, which constituted a form of racism that was considered in my supposedly "class warfare-based lawsuit". He did $800. of damage and my car and ruined my $300.00 radio that he threw as he ran from me. None of which I was able to recoup. He was arrested the night before the final hearing for GTA (stealing a car, and joyriding), and the week prior, for graffiti. And some loser public defense lawyer argued that my entire case was based on race - and won! That is what I call a "LOSER FACTOR" - when you have no argument left, except one stupid notion that has little or nothing to do with the entire case, and all of a sudden, that becomes the basis of the case. I don't know what else I could have done, except know in advance and videotape the whole thing. I'm all for "innocent until proven guilty", but geez, I had eyewitnesses (who pos. ID'd the guy) and the guy was arrested in front of me!
While I respect that fact that defense lawyers are necessary (someday, I'll need one - I'm white, I believe in God and I'm a Republican - I'm bound to be jailed for something if liberals stay in power!http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif, I'm not convinced that just because there are "factors", which are as long as the highways in Arizona, that a solid argument can be made in light of the current and known facts. And asking weather the cop was in or out of uniform at the time he was shot is one of those "loser factors" that only leave you grasping at straws. If the answer to the question is in your favor, you run that point into the ground. If it's NOT in your favor, you leave that branch and bark up a different tree. There are a million reasons that we can imagine why this kid did what he did - and I just refuse to go down all those roads with you.
Your opinion is just as good as mine, maybe better! But I just don't think we're going to solve anything by branching out 15 different ways to come to one conclusion. Congress does that when we beg for lower taxes, and look what we get - Motor Voter Bills. Geesh!
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My point was that we could not conclusively say that any one factor, if removed, wold have any impact on the result besides removing the obvious factor--the gun. I am not blaming the gun.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>A man was shot. A gun was used. Guns CAN be used to kill people. Granted. But why do you have such a fight for marijuana? You seem to be unable to give up the point that marijuana is dangerous. In your line of work, I'm sure you also defend potheads. So I'm going against every aspect of your job. Do you think I have the credentials to win.... or to convince an unknown judge? If I was to actually convince you, then you couldn't defend potheads effectively. In my book, that's not a bad thing. However, my book is not the law. Justice is.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If someone commits a crime of violence, we need to stop looking for excuses for why they did so and concentrate on punishing the behavior we are trying to deter. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>Adding a drug charge to keep a killer in jail longer seems like a "good deal", considering the plea-bargains that go on behind closed doors. But when people get off murder charges and plea the DRUG charge (ie - trade the felony for the palsy misdemeanor), the tables turn as if they were on ball-bearings! Why? Because the drug charges include BS like "Community service" and "Probation".
On second thought, that would be the ONE reason that I MIGHT support the legalization of marijuana - so these crummy criminals don't have a scapegoat to "plea bargain" with. And that legislation still falls under the honor of "Justice". THAT is an argument we could consider.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A common reaction to devastating events is to find the one thing that caused the tragedy and stop it by making a law. It serves only to stigmatize. You, AZWW, would have been labelled as a social deviant, or a drunkard, during alcohol prohibition [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>Probably! But I should have been, since it was illegal and stigmitized. I'm a smoker today - don't tell me how unpopular I am. I already know.
On a kinder note, I agree with you - knee-jerk legislation truly serves no-one. But I don't see a problem with stigmas - if the shoe fits, wear it. You can't legislate popularity! So let's call the potheads, "potheads" and stop claiming that it's the glaucoma and HIV as the reason to make it legal. Let's just say that people want to get fuzzed and bombed out of their minds on an occasional basis - I can see that being a more realistic approach, though IMHO a foolish one.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Certainly there are those who can handle their alcohol, such is true with marijuana. But we have ignored that because someone has convinced us that we have to eradicate marijuana use--it is irresponsible.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>To be honest, I could drop alcohol out of my life, and I'd be just as happy. I like it, but I'm not willing to break the law for it. Alcohol actually has a benefit in that it helps the heart, and older people benefit from it's use.
But I'm a firm believer in punishing drunk driving. And I mean 10 year license loss, $20,000 fine, and 30 days in jail. That would be MY minimum. And that would go the same for driving while "high". Why so high on punishment? So that no-one can "work it down". A set rule would be followed. Or penalized. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif And if a judge hands "half the punishment", it would have to be a REALLY good defense to get that. I'd be happy with that.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I say it is not a government concern whether you have the opportunity to choose to put into your body any substance so long as that introduction causes no harm to others.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>I gotta disagree there too. We are certainly two individuals on such polar opposites, aren't we? http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif There is no such thing as "causes no harm to others". While your non-extreme pot usage MIGHT work, let's look at the extreme - do you think a heroin addict is not going to subversely affect his family? While he may not beat or kill his wife, he certainly isn't going to do her any favors, nor his children. Definately no benefits - possibly some damage. How is that helpful? Everything you do affects MANY people around you. That applies to talking, walking, driving, communicating, forgetting to brush your teeth, and even ordering a beer in a bar. The harm you suggest could be extreme before it could ever be beneficial - then what?
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Like the drunk driver, a “high” person who violates the rights of others should be held responsible. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>As long as the criminal lawyer can point out an inconsistenty in the paint lines on the highway, no-one is going to be held responsible for $#!t. Instead, the city will be sued for neglect. That, my friend, is why lawyers get the stigma that THEY get.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> I think sleepy drivers should have strict penalties for causing an accident that injures others. You can replace sleepy with drunk, high, angry, inattentive, etc., and the same would be true. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>Nope... I think the human emotions like sleepy, angry and inattentive have the problems of their own - they happen naturally, and on their own. They should be seperated by the affects that CAN be avoided (and mixed) with those emotions - such as pot and alcohol. I just fail to see the benefit of pot, or why we should legalize it. You still haven't shown that case to me, and I'm still interested in seeing it. Everyone wants to tax the hell out of cigarettes, but legalize pot. The logic eludes me, but I'm sure you're ready to educate me. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
On a personal note, I'm glad you did mention that you were a criminal defense lawyer. You seemed TOO legalistic and persistent for a "Republican wondering out loud". I was beginning to think you were a troll from the Green Party...
So fire both barrels and see where we end up. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
AZWW