War on Drugs snares 12-year-old with powdered sugar

Are kids allowed to come to school drunk? Of course not so why would anyone think that legalization of drugs would allow them to come to school stoned or tweaked?
Click to expand...

It was the part about "no anti drug school laws" that lead me to believe children would not be punished for posession of drugs on school property, or for coming to school stoned.


After all, there is absolutely no point to these laws.
No cocaine law, no fake cocaine.
No drug laws, no anti-drug school laws.
No anti drug school laws, more focus on education.
Click to expand...

How I read into that, legalize drugs and then remove anti drug school laws. Therefore, the school system won't have to waste as much time busting kids for posession, drug sale or drug use in schools, and have more time to focus on education.
 
Kids coming to school stoned, less attention paid to education.
Click to expand...

And the current laws prevent that how?

Look, whoever has a desire to come to school stoned is already doing so. The notion that an absence of such laws would result in previously "good" kids all of a sudden showing up at school baked out of their minds is just as fallacious as the Brady Bunch assertion that CCW laws make otherwise good citizens kill each other over parking spots.
 
You're right, Marko. The current laws really can't keep those who want to go to school stoned from doing it. However, when you remove "anti drug school laws", you're saying it's acceptable to come to school stoned without punishment. I bet that you'd more than likely see an increase of kids doing it. Lets say that X% of kids who get high don't bring the stuff to school or do drugs during or before school due to fear of being caught and punished. Removing that restriction is basically telling all of those kids that they can get high in school and before school without risk of punishment.

You may not see previously "good" kids showing up stoned, but you would most likely see many more kids who already use drugs showing up stoned.

I knew plenty of kids in high school that would drink alcohol now and then, but how many have you ever seen show up to school drunk? Certainly there will be a few who do. I knew of one, and I can't quite recall whether he was suspended or expelled (one of the two). Now if the school removed "no alcohol laws", I'm sure you'd see more of those kids who drink every weekend showing up to school drunk, thus minimizing their chances of actually learning anything while at school.
 
saying that changing the law will spurr people on to use is complete BS. People will do what they want to do, period. NO law in the world has ever prevented someone from committing that act. If someone murders my family, the death penalty will not deter me from exacting revenge. The current laws sure as hell didn't keep me from going to high school every morning stoned out of my mind:D (just so you know i got A's all the way through high school and college with a little pot to take the edge off a hard days work, instead of slamming back a 12 pack)
 
I cant beleive what I am reading here. WE the citizens are slowly abdicating power to the state though all this No Tolerance BS. We might as well take the blindfold of justice pluck her eyeballs out and cut her ears off. We pay a lot of school superintendents a six figure salary. The principal has probably had child education and psychology classes out the wazoo. Why do we need a no tolerance law to deal with a 12 year old when common sense should prevail and the school officials and the parents should be able to take care of the problem. The police and courts have better things they can attend to.
As citizens we have rights, on the flip side of the coin are responsibilities.

12 years old is not the age of majority. There is a reason that 12 year olds are not allowed to enter into binding contracts, get married, vote, or enter the military service. As adults we are aware of the fact that a 12 year old is not a mature person and is going to do stupid things. We all did stupid things at that age. My Dad did not require the law to give me an attitude adjustment by charging me with a felony. He was more than capable of performing that feat himself in a non violent form sometimes.

Now sometimes an act by a juvenile may be so heinous that it requires certification of the child to be tried as an adult. This is the exception instead of the norm in the majority of cases.

I see no reason why school officials and parents can not sit down review his record and past behavior. The school and the parents should then be able to come up with a punshment that allows the young man to cogitate on his sins while it is carried out. What are we even draigging the police and courts into this.

If we allow this no tolerance BS and other types of this law to empower the state and take away power from the people, someday prying them from your cold dead fingers may be a reality.
 
saying that changing the law will spurr people on to use is complete BS. People will do what they want to do, period. NO law in the world has ever prevented someone from committing that act.
Click to expand...

I'm not really suggesting that people who didn't do drugs before will do them after a law change. I'm just suggesting that those who already do drugs will now do drugs before/during school. I certainly do believe that allowing kids to come in stoned would create an increase in those getting high in school, who would normally just toke up at home.

I don't do 25 mph over the limit because I could lose my license. However, if I lived in montana and I'm driving on a 30 mile stretch of highway with no cars or houses in sight, there is really nothing wrong with doing even 35 over the limit. Will I do it? No, because I value my license, and would rather not take the chance that I could lose it. If there was no speed limit, would I drive 90+ mph in that situation? Most likely, yes. :D

Kinda the same thing with the kids. It's no longer against the rules. There's no punishment, therefore those who were kept from doing something because of fear of consequences now don't have to fear any consequences.
 
ok fine...

...but joke about it in front of the wrong people (which is aparenty what this kid did) and you may be explaining how "unserious" it is to a jury of your peers
 
Which merely demonstrates how ridiculous it is to charge a 12-year-old with a victimless crime. Even if you believe victimless crimes are valid, don't you think that such crimes committed by young kids should be dealt with privately rather than resorting to the heavy hand of the legal system?

Nobody was hurt, no property was damaged, and a 12-year-old will not get a jury of his peers if this goes to trial.
 
very true...

I'm not disagreeing with the ridiculousness of the situation...(but a crime is a crime, like it or not). I was just saying that, as it stands right now, it would be an enormous mistake to attempt to sell any substance as a narcotic. I think most would agree that, for better or worse, the end result would be jail time. Or at very least a not-so-fun time in a courtroom.
 
Nobody was hurt, no property was damaged,
Click to expand...
I hear that reasoning a lot.
Not that it has anything to do with the case of the twelve year old, but

If I get drunk and drive through a residential area at 100 mph but don't hit any body or anything.
Would that not be a crime

If I get mad and take a shot at someone who does not realize that they have been shot at, because I use a .22 from a long distance from behind, is there not a crime committed there even though nobody was hurt and no property was damaged
 
I have always thought legalizing drugs was logical from a practical and philosophical standpoint. I am always surprised to find how many people agree with me (especially in pro-gun circles, where questioning conventional wisdom is common). I just can't believe how little momentum the idea has in the "real world." This is especially odd considering how little foundation the efficacy of the "war on drugs" has in hard facts. Quite often I will question ADAs and Solicitors about the logic underlying these laws and their explanations will fall quite flat. The only folks who I ever find that argue passionately for these laws are law enforcement officers--and their defenses are almost all emotional "do you want YOUR son to die at the hands of a junkie driving while hopped-up on meth?"

That said, I have little faith that these laws will ever be rolled back. There are massive bureaucracies, themselves founded on deceit, that has a vested interest in keeping these laws alive.
 
Looks to me like it's time that pro-gun people who are anti-drug and pro-drug people who are anti-gun take a close look at their thinking.

Those in power like nothing better than to have factions that would otherwise be struggling for freedom (from those in power) struggling against each other instead.

Wake up, folks. Do you want freedom, or don't you?
 
Greg, you took the words right outta my mouth. When i see so many people who post on here wanting to end prohibition and restore our rights, i wonder why our gov. doesn't reflect that. I know the gov. profits greatly from prohibition, but couldn't they just legalize and tax.
 
I've been reading this thread since it started. I'm really amazed at some of the attitudes here. I shouldn't be... But I am nonetheless.

Kids are smart. Smart enough that I find it suspicious that the kid went to school with powdered sugar in a baggie. Still...

It's a frelling 12 year old, for pete's sake! Twelve year olds do stupid stuff. Never known one who didn't, myself included. So he said it was cocaine... Did he actually try and sell it? Not from the info we have at hand. I suspect that if he had, even the low-life newspaper would have reported it... I suspect they would have had a virtual field day with that piece of info. The kid also said he was joking. Can we take that at face value, or must we read into it?

But to burden the state with an arrest and trial over something that is most likely a stupid prank by a 12 year old... Well, that's just over the top.

Do I want drugs in schools? No. Nor do I want schools to prosecute stupid 12 year pranks. Ruin a persons life over the stupidity of a 12 year old... Some of you need a reality check.
 
"The kid also said he was joking. Can we take that at face value, or must we read into it?"

Nope. Sorry. We're a "zero-tolerance" society now. Common sense and intentions have no relevance.

Tim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top