The Elephant in the Room

[Plastic Shaman]

So what if you did grow tobacco and junior helped you? Does that mean junior actually possessed or used what you grew? I believe you, as the parent would likely be the owner of the crop on your land. That's hardly an apples to apple analogy of a minor using tobacco products. Nor would what you questioned be a crime.

Now if junior took some of the crop he helped dear old dad harvest and rolled some up and ignited it, inhaling the smoke into his lungs, now that would be illegal in 42 states (maybe not your state, but in most states). Yes it would.

Additionally, it would probably depend on the language of the statute. The federal legislation all uses the term tobacco product, which is a product derived from tobacco and intended for human consumption. So, when it says that the FDA can regulate the sale of tobacco products, it's really only talking about processed products that we see in stores, not raw tobacco.

 

[sub4me]

Now see that kind of common sense I can agree with.

 

[Plastic Shaman]

Still the same old argument going on about nothing, let it go already.

When I saw that this thread had been resurrected, I was overcome with surprise, pleasure, and intense anguish.

 

[sgilners]

the idea of not selling to minors will never work, it does not work with smokes or drinks, and this will be similar. youth will always get what they want through various methods. Maybe letting e-cigs be totally available would decrease the numbers of kids using them just because its not forbidden anymore.

I'm extremely happy to have found vaping for myself, I find it much healthier for me than the 30 I was smoking per day. But with that being said i'm pretty sure the future will show that vaping may not be as safe as many of us think it is (hopefully i'm wrong here). With energy drinks being gulped by the gallons and lack of activity in todays kids I think the e-cig issue should be on the back burner of how to keep kids healthy.

 

[Jman8]

I'm not going to disagree with you that we could do things a lot differently and that there would better results, like public health information and safety. I also agree that criminal charges are probably not the best idea. However, I will say this. I think you are over attributing the allure of these acts to their taboo nature. Although I don't disagree that something of an illicit nature attracts people to some extent, I think that there are other factors that play a bigger role. For example, when talking about nicotine and other things, I think that there is a natural inclination to use these substances because they alter our state of consciousness. This is a desire that people have always had. Even animals will eat some plants that alter the mind, like mushrooms and catnip (I'm pretty sure that catnip does, but I could be wrong). Even small children have fun doing this, like when they spin around to make themselves feel dizzy. So, regardless if it's caffeine, nicotine, or something more drastic, I think there's a good argument that we have a natural inclination to imbibe these substances.

I agree there are other factors than simply the illicit nature. In fact, I'm sure the illicit nature is kinda far down on the actual reasons for continued use, but kinda high up on the reason for initial use. I think the desire for altered state of consciousness is higher among adolescents than most other ages because up til that point it has likely been "follow this rule because I said so" or "follow this policy because that's the way it is and you aren't in any position to challenge this." I think the desire to alter state of consciousness is also desire to rebel against that while also leading to desire to open doors that were previously perceived as shut. IMO, one doesn't need 'drugs' to obtain this, as music can open up some doors, or even a really good book might.

The next reason is self-medication. A lot of people smoke cigarette or drink to help them relax, right? The same goes with more intense substances. Addicts use them because it helps get rid of stress and pain. Since there is a natural tendency to use these, I don't know if simply allowing them to be legal and talking about them would have any substantial effect on their use. A lot of teens would still use nicotine and other substances for reasons besides peer pressure or a desire to defy authority.

Partially agree. You say 'addicts use them because it helps get rid of stress and pain' when I think it is observable that users who are (allegedly) non-addicts will use for same purpose. What is the reason a lawyer might have a drink everyday after work, other than self medication? Let's assume the lawyer in this hypothetical example is not an addict/alcoholic as I'm sure all of us know people that drink frequently but aren't in same boat as chronic abuser. I think kids are tuned into idea that some really successful people self medicate (often with drugs, some of which are legal) on a daily basis. It honestly strikes me, to this day, that this is one of the ways in which people get ahead in their walk of life, by associating themselves with the people who work hard and can play hard on a daily basis (or no less than weekly basis). So, it isn't just the rebellious thing at work, but the idea that this choice to use doesn't take away from success and arguably enhances chances of success.

The blatantly overt delinquent people in a high school aren't coming off as 'cool' I think to their peers. Rebellious? Sure. But the fellow student who is doing well (B+ average or higher), plays well on sports teams or is involved in other extra curricular activities, and is having kegger party this weekend, comes off as cool. Who doesn't want to join with the cool (and attractive) people in these events in effort to self medicate, and get ahead?

As far as punishing the mother, we have a legal, and I believe moral, duty to take care of our children. Unlike other people, you have a duty to rescue and you can't sit by while your child suffers or dies. I know that this is all a matter of degree. In other words, it's obvious that you have to intercede if your child is being abused by your partner or spouse. You can be held criminally liable if you don't. On the other hand, there are situations where it is not so clear if a duty is being violated. Providing tobacco and alcohol is probably one of those. I've known people who buy tobacco for their children because they believe their children will steal it otherwise and could be at risk of criminal charges. Likewise, some people provide alcohol in their homes to those underage because they don't want them trying to buy alcohol illegally and/ or drinking and driving in the process. I think that these may be valid reasons. At the same time, there is a counter argument that providing these substances exposes your children to health risks and addiction, if addiction is not already present. It's a complicated question, but I don't think we should just dismiss either side without some consideration of the issues at stake.

I very much agree with this last part. I recognize that if it were magically 'all legal' tomorrow, the perception of problems with teen use would go way way up. And would have many to most people questioning, 'who thought it was a good idea to make it all legal?' In a home setting, between parent-child, it is obvious (to the child) who thought it was a good idea for this child to have access to the substance. And in some cases, I'm sure we can imagine parent who is doing it in a way that amounts to child neglect, while also imagining cases where it is done in way to provide oversight, reasonable control and mature supervision in case things go in direction of 'getting out of hand.'

Part of the way I choose to see things is that at some point in history, in some cultures, we used to have shamans involved in rites of passage who provided access and direct supervision, with awareness of cons of going in this direction. Fast forward to what we have now, and some of that shamanic role exists, but it is really occurring in a peer to peer way in most cases, or perhaps (and hopefully) with parents who can provide the supervision, who understand the pros and who are reasonably aware of the cons. Yet, parents in that direction are generally observed as neglectful or even harmful. So, that leaves children to fend for themselves and to plausibly follow guidance from peer who is cool, seemingly knowledgeable, and/or attractive. I don't think if it were all legal, and the leading up to that was incredibly well thought through that the peer to peer thing would stop. But I think that would be greatly influenced by a substantial group of parents who are essentially adopting a shamanic role in effort to guide the next generation on a path they have already walked.

 

[BigEgo]

Cut and paste from some Internet page. Anyways, I found out as a teenager that Alabama does indeed have a law that prohibits minors from having cigarettes in possession.

I was born and raised in Bama too. I remember smoking as a teenager in front of Cops who never seemed to care (and this wasn't all that long ago). Unless things have changed in the past 20 years, I doubt kids are getting arrested for smoking. Not saying that there's no such law, just that in my experience it was never enforced.

Alcohol is a different story. It is illegal for a minor to even possess alcohol in this state as I also learned as a teen. It's also illegal for an adult to possess alcohol in a vehicle unless the alcohol is out of sight (eg in the trunk).

 

[VapinWolf]

I was born and raised in Bama too. I remember smoking as a teenager in front of Cops who never seemed to care (and this wasn't all that long ago). Unless things have changed in the past 20 years, I doubt kids are getting arrested for smoking. Not saying that there's no such law, just that in my experience it was never enforced.

Alcohol is a different story. It is illegal for a minor to even possess alcohol in this state as I also learned as a teen. It's also illegal for an adult to possess alcohol in a vehicle unless the alcohol is out of sight (eg in the trunk).

I am 43, when I was 16, just after the no sale law went into effect for minors, I found out first hand behind the mall that it did indeed include 'possession' when it was written.
It should be noted that while I was 16, I was also very much in the act of being 16 at the time. While nothing that I was doing or saying was in violation of the law, and the officers were turning to walk away because it was obvious 1. I wasn't listening to them 2. I wasn't a threat 3. I wasn't breaking any laws....I was just smart and smug enough to pull out my pack of Marlboros to celebrate my victory.

POSSESSION

Funny, I remember their faces, kinda like they were bummed out about something. But when I pulled that pack out they brightened up substantially. ...hmmm

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[BigEgo]

So, you think it's worse than living in East Berlin or North Korea? We have some huge systematic problems, but people still have their right to trials and due process as well as many other essential liberties.

Right to trial doesn't matter when the laws themselves are total bull {MODERATED}. A quote from a legal scholar:

The legal scholar Douglas Husak, in his excellent 2009 book "Overcriminalization: The Limits of the Criminal Law," points out that federal law alone includes more than 3,000 crimes, fewer than half of which found in the Federal Criminal Code. The rest are scattered through other statutes. A citizen who wants to abide by the law has no quick and easy way to find out what the law actually is — a violation of the traditional principle that the state cannot punish without fair notice.

In addition to these statutes, he writes, an astonishing 300,000 or more federal regulations may be enforceable through criminal punishment in the discretion of an administrative agency. Nobody knows the number for sure

We always hear that "ignorance of a law is no defense." I say bull {MODERATED}. It is a defense when you have more than 3,000 possible crimes outlined in federal statutes and another 300,000 crimes that can be enforced by administrative agencies (EPA, IRS, etc). Do you have all of these laws memorized? Do you really? I sure as hell don't and no one else does either. So it all boils down to not getting caught for a crime you committed when you didn't even realize you committed a crime. Which brings me back to my prior point: if the government "has it out" for you (because of political views or any other reason), they can put anyone away for years without much problem. It can and does happen.

 

[rbrylawski]

I bought my first pack of cigarettes from a vending machine when I was 16. The machine somehow didn't dispense a book of matches, which they typically did back in the dark ages. So, what was a young lad, who was looking forward to lighting his first bought with his own money cigarette do? Asked a police officer who was outside smoking for a light. He gave me his matches and said I could keep them.

Yes, it was in the early 1970's and it wasn't illegal for a 16 year old to smoke. I wish it had been. And I wish that "nice" policeman had done something truly scary to me. Maybe he could have helped me avoid smoking for the next 40 years.

 

[towelie]

Well, the injured party is the state. The prosecution represents the state. The judge is an objective party. Both the judge and the prosecution have particular roles that they fill and must conform to ethical standards. I don't see what the issue is with this system as long as the judge is insulated from the state. Really, I don't even see any option. Would you rather the there be no judge? You will always need a mediator and someone has to pay for it. If it was privately paid for, like in arbitration, people would claim that the system favors those with money. If it's paid for by the state, people claim that the judge is biased against the defendant. If you have a better idea, share it.

How is the state injured if I safely run a stop sign exactly?

I don't know what case you're talking about but I'm guessing this is going back to the who thing about exchanging currency for gold. Honestly, what's the point? Most of the people who go on about this are just cranks. I have yet to hear one cogent reason why the government should start giving out gold or why we should back our money with gold. There are a number of policy reasons that the government wanted to move away from gold. I don't see the hard they are causing.

Point was right to due process. Funny, most ppl that go on about regulation being a good thing are just cranks and busy bodies imho. Of course there are many reasons to back money with gold but whats the point when, as you say "tax revenue exceeds tax obligations". One good reason the US should NOT go back to a gold standard is a lack of gold

Which great thinker said you need to know every law that's out there? No one can do that, it's too vast. When society becomes a certain size, it becomes impossible to become a person who is an expert in any particular field, mainly because of the time devotion. Fortunately for all of us, there's no need for us to become experts on everything. We have lawyers that know about areas of law. Also, most of these things will never apply to us as individuals. Go read through the CFR and see how many things you will at some point need to deal with. Think you'll ever have to do something like evaluate a grant of a right of way to see if the Department of the Interior complied with the proper procedures? Probably not unless you work in a specific field. This is the same with vast majority of the law. The only important things that I can think of are, for the most part, common sense, like criminal statutes. You'll probably be OK if you don't devote your life to this.

Yes yes, thank god for lawyers.

What's your point? That the state of affairs in America does not meet the goals of the Marxists?

Lol denial is in Egypt, correct.

 

[towelie]

So what if you did grow tobacco and junior helped you? Does that mean junior actually possessed or used what you grew? I believe you, as the parent would likely be the owner of the crop on your land. That's hardly an apples to apple analogy of a minor using tobacco products. Nor would what you questioned be a crime.

Now if junior took some of the crop he helped dear old dad harvest and rolled some up and ignited it, inhaling the smoke into his lungs, now that would be illegal in 42 states (maybe not your state, but in most states). Yes it would.

Possession; yes it was in junior's hands, I made him wear gloves though. After it was cured we soaked it and made a spray, then he sprayed it; possessing the tobacco product and using it. That is literally an apple analogy of a minor possessing and using a tobacco product and common sense tells you this is not a crime.

Now you need to pay some legislators or council to clarify this and sort it out for us. w00t for Economic Stimulus from the Central Planners. Why is it not better to just govern yourself? As much as I hate, and I mean HATE to see a minor smoke; the fact of the matter is none of my rights are infringed if a minor smokes a cigarette.

Perhaps a valid argument can be made that the minor upsets my pocket book IFF somehow that child is subsidized through tax revenue, then the discussion would have to focus on privileges, not rights.

 

[towelie]

I bought my first pack of cigarettes from a vending machine when I was 16. The machine somehow didn't dispense a book of matches, which they typically did back in the dark ages. So, what was a young lad, who was looking forward to lighting his first bought with his own money cigarette do? Asked a police officer who was outside smoking for a light. He gave me his matches and said I could keep them.

Yes, it was in the early 1970's and it wasn't illegal for a 16 year old to smoke. I wish it had been. And I wish that "nice" policeman had done something truly scary to me. Maybe he could have helped me avoid smoking for the next 40 years.

LOL quarters in, pull the handle outward? I remember that {MODERATED}.

 

[Plastic Shaman]

Right to trial doesn't matter when the laws themselves are total bull {MODERATED}. A quote from a legal scholar:



We always hear that "ignorance of a law is no defense." I say bull {MODERATED}. It is a defense when you have more than 3,000 possible crimes outlined in federal statutes and another 300,000 crimes that can be enforced by administrative agencies (EPA, IRS, etc). Do you have all of these laws memorized? Do you really? I sure as hell don't and no one else does either. So it all boils down to not getting caught for a crime you committed when you didn't even realize you committed a crime. Which brings me back to my prior point: if the government "has it out" for you (because of political views or any other reason), they can put anyone away for years without much problem. It can and does happen.

I agree and I said that before. If the government really wants to get you, they will find a will. Just like at a job. If your boss really hates you, they will find a way around laws, policies, ect. to punish you. However, the government isn't using laws like that to get to people. Furthermore, they don't need to if they are out to get you.

Anyways, someone can point out all those possible crimes, but I've yet to hear about anyone being charged with a crime that no one even knew existed. Prosecutors don't have time for nonsense like that. Also, while ignorance of the law is not an excuse, there are some rare cases where mistake of law and other types of situations are an excuse. I wish I could remember the name, I'd have to do some searching, of a case where something like that happened. Essentially, a woman moved into a city and she was a felon. There was also a city ordinance that said that all felons had to register with the city. She violated it via ignorance. When the case went up on appeal, the violation was thrown out. Essentially, they said that while the old axiom was generally true, this was a unique situation where there was an anomalous law that she couldn't possibly be expected to even conceive of and should not be held liable for. I think that something like that could prove to be a defense if anyone actually tried to charge you on something like that.

 

[Plastic Shaman]

How is the state injured if I safely run a stop sign exactly?

Well, let's take another crime. If two guys get in a fight, no one has go to the hospital, and they are both charged with simple assault, how is the state hurt? So, why do we charge them? The simple explanation is that charging them goes to establishing the goals of our theories of justice. The main theories of justice that the legal system considers are deterrence and retribution. Deterrence punishes a crime to discourage future crimes by the violator and others would be violator. Retribution punishes people for the wrongness of their actions. These are derived from the ethical philosophies of Benthan and Kant, respectively. There are other theories of justice, rehabilitation, restorative, isolation, ect. But, those are the main ones that legal theorists base the ideas on.

Point was right to due process. Funny, most ppl that go on about regulation being a good thing are just cranks and busy bodies imho. Of course there are many reasons to back money with gold but whats the point when, as you say "tax revenue exceeds tax obligations". One good reason the US should NOT go back to a gold standard is a lack of gold

Maybe I'm lost. How is that due process? Do you mean it's a procedural due process violation because the Court didn't give him gold or silver? I don't see how that's a due process violation.

Yes yes, thank god for lawyers.

Well, if we were talking about medicine, I would have said doctors. Every field has specialists that are needed for society to function at this point.

Lol denial is in Egypt, correct.

Are you saying that we are almost at the goals of the Marxists? I don't know how.

 

[Jman8]

I bought my first pack of cigarettes from a vending machine when I was 16. The machine somehow didn't dispense a book of matches, which they typically did back in the dark ages. So, what was a young lad, who was looking forward to lighting his first bought with his own money cigarette do? Asked a police officer who was outside smoking for a light. He gave me his matches and said I could keep them.

Yes, it was in the early 1970's and it wasn't illegal for a 16 year old to smoke. I wish it had been. And I wish that "nice" policeman had done something truly scary to me. Maybe he could have helped me avoid smoking for the next 40 years.

Any chance you could've helped yourself?

 

[TomGeorge]

Well, let's take another crime. If two guys get in a fight, no one has go to the hospital, and they are both charged with simple assault, how is the state hurt? So, why do we charge them? The simple explanation is that charging them goes to establishing the goals of our theories of justice. The main theories of justice that the legal system considers are deterrence and retribution. Deterrence punishes a crime to discourage future crimes by the violator and others would be violator. Retribution punishes people for the wrongness of their actions. These are derived from the ethical philosophies of Benthan and Kant, respectively. There are other theories of justice, rehabilitation, restorative, isolation, ect. But, those are the main ones that legal theorists base the ideas on.

Its all about money. Do a quick google search and see how much money is going to correctional institutions today vs. 40 years ago. Look at how many more prisons there are and how many more people are incarcerated. Even for "petty crimes." Do I think some people should be given special treatment and not be punished...no...but they way it is is wrong. It is all about having the biggest government possible and controlling the population. Dumping money into prison systems "to keep the people safe" (heard that argument from other agencies...) is just one way of doing that. To be a-political, the republicans dont want a small government either, they just want to control it over the dems. Its about money and power, not safety, protection and freedom like it should be.

 

[Plastic Shaman]

Its all about money. Do a quick google search and see how much money is going to correctional institutions today vs. 40 years ago. Look at how many more prisons there are and how many more people are incarcerated. Even for "petty crimes." Do I think some people should be given special treatment and not be punished...no...but they way it is is wrong. It is all about having the biggest government possible and controlling the population. Dumping money into prison systems "to keep the people safe" (heard that argument from other agencies...) is just one way of doing that. To be a-political, the republicans dont want a small government either, they just want to control it over the dems. Its about money and power, not safety, protection and freedom like it should be.

No doubt. Sadly, a lot of our resources go into incarcerating non-violent offenders and the mentally ill. It's a pretty sorry state of affairs. I would disagree with you about big government and population control. I think one of the big factors is the rise of private prisons. These companies have an actual fiscal interest in increasing the population of prisoners and keeping them incarcerated. They have also being growing along with the percentage of people in prisons.

Still, I was just talking about some theoretical frame works that have been around a long time. These are the types of ideas we using in constructing our criminal laws and punishments.

 

[towelie]

Well, let's take another crime. If two guys get in a fight, no one has go to the hospital, and they are both charged with simple assault, how is the state hurt? So, why do we charge them? The simple explanation is that charging them goes to establishing the goals of our theories of justice. The main theories of justice that the legal system considers are deterrence and retribution. Deterrence punishes a crime to discourage future crimes by the violator and others would be violator. Retribution punishes people for the wrongness of their actions. These are derived from the ethical philosophies of Benthan and Kant, respectively. There are other theories of justice, rehabilitation, restorative, isolation, ect. But, those are the main ones that legal theorists base the ideas on.

The state is not hurt in your example. If the two are charged without pressing charges on each other, then "we" charge them for revenue; deterrence as you put it. You might argue prison or jail is not revenue but is deterrence; but with the waves of shortened sentences of non violent offenders this tips the scales towards revenue and of course it takes revenue to run jails and prisons in the first place, much more than collected in fines I'm afraid in most instances.

Maybe I'm lost. How is that due process? Do you mean it's a procedural due process violation because the Court didn't give him gold or silver? I don't see how that's a due process violation.

Without reading the case for you, it was iffy for the due process. Milam wasn't allowed to redeem in specie, I'm not saying thats not due process at all as I have the ability to research, read and comprehend the various Coinage Acts. The court (ninth circuit I think?) did not however explain why redeeming a fed note for a fed note satisfies statutory obligation for the Fed to redeem the note. Court said to Milam: Fed tried to satisfy your demand, you refused.
I feel this lack of explanation violates due process. I often wonder what would have happened if Milam asked how and why this satisfies the statute. That would be a nice read. Milam contended only gold and silver were lawful money, that is not my contention evident insofar as the Fed has more than just that in their lawful reserves, plainly evident especially today with things like the internet.

Well, if we were talking about medicine, I would have said doctors. Every field has specialists that are needed for society to function at this point.

And every point before. Even the Sumerians had teachers, scribes ect...there's always been a need for masons and blacksmiths since forever, this specialization is not new to society. Indeed what is new to US culture is the concept of being born into any sort of obliged society whatsoever at a federal level. Until this point the common law sufficed, no harm no foul; life, liberty all that.
The difference is that illness and sickness, broken bones ect are actually real. Society is not, it is completely fictitious. An injured party is real. Actual damages. Philosophical damages, such as in both yours and my examples are completely imaginary.

Are you saying that we are almost at the goals of the Marxists? I don't know how.

I gave you a list of Marxist political goals for developed nations, written by Marx. Your contention, I gather by this response, is that none of those goals have been met in the US, hence the perhaps preemptive reference to denial.

 

[towelie]

Still, I was just talking about some theoretical frame works that have been around a long time. These are the types of ideas we using in constructing our criminal laws and punishments.

Its nice to think its that way, unfortunately its not. Debtors prison for example is pretty new. Not being able to grow a certain type of garden is a crime these days. Very new theoretical frame work more along the lines of "guilty before proven innocent". Very Marxist imho both of these.

 

[Baldr]

We always hear that "ignorance of a law is no defense." I say bull {MODERATED}.

Every year, around this time, I see articles in the paper about new laws which will be going into effect at the start of the new year. In variably, the articles say something along the lines of "200 new laws will be in effect on January 1st. Here are the five you need to know about". The other 195 don't get mentioned. Brand new laws, but they don't even make the newspaper, so there is no way you can know what they are or how to avoid breaking them.

And it happens every year, which means there are *lots* of laws out there that most people know nothing about. And those are state laws. It gets worse when you consider how many laws are written by each individual town.