Reefer Madness! Hilarious Bullshit Propaganda Film From 1936

[Jerry McGuire]

Heroine and crack cocaine will seriously mess up your life. Those are the kinds of substances that get people robbed or killed because a junkie wanted their next fix. Hard drugs like that need to be illegal. Weed should be decriminalized, but keep the hards drugs illegal.

[Fat Man]

All I'm saying is that our drug laws have been a dismal failure.

Those who have small quantities for personal use only do not deserve to go to prison, as long as they have not committed any violet or other serious crimes.

Now, if you steal to support your habit, then you should go to jail for stealing.

But most drug users have not committed violet crimes, and because of mandatory sentencing, our prisons are overcrowded and they have had to release other more violent offenders too early to make room for those who only had small quantities of dope for personal use only.

Only violent criminals should go to prison, rapist and child molesters.

Find some other alternative sentencing for non-violent junkies. Take them out of the prisons and make more room for rapists and child molesters.

Hey! I knew a young lady who was a heroine addict. She was actually a very nice person. OK? I liked her, she had a nice pleasant personality, but she was addicted to heroine.

She had never harmed anybody in her life, and eventually she did seek treatment to overcome her addiction. She does not deserve to be locked up somewhere with people who are violent.

She was badly abuse as a child, and her own husband use to beat up on her. Some people turn to drugs, because, for a while, drugs might make you feel good. Of course, many find out that the good feeling is only temporary.

I'm not advocating drug use, or exactly legalizing drugs, I'm only saying that having small quantities for personal use only should be decriminalized, so that it would make it easier to seek treatment to over come drug addiction.

Yes, I agree that using drugs is stupid, but only violent people should go to prison.

The prohibition against alcohol back in the 1920s and 1930s was a dismal failure, and when the 18th Amendment was repealed, and alcohol was legal again, the crime rates went down, and it put the violent mobsters out of business.

I believe the same can be done with the drug situation.

Drug addiction is a medical issue, and the medical community should deal with addiction.

PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals would love to have meat, chicken, and fish outlawed, also eggs and dairy products. Some of them whack-jobs in PETA even refer to cheese as "dairy crack" which is really stupid!!!

Well, as I was typing this, I just made myself a couple of cheddar cheese sandwiches. Yeah! I just had some dairy crack!!! It was delicious! And later on this evening, I'm going to have a couple of scoops of ice cream, some more dairy crack!

We are becoming more and more of a Nanny State, with more and more people wanting to even regulate what we eat.

Well, I'm not giving up meat, chicken, turkey, fish, or dairy products. I refuse to live on nothing but lettuce leaves and tofu!

What I eat is my own damn business, and if I like a beer once in a while, that's my own damn business! I don't drink every day, and I avoid getting drunk because getting drunk is stupid, but there is nothing wrong with having a beer with a meal.

And I'm not giving up my favorite pipe tobacco or my cigars.

In the past, people have even tried to tell me what books to read or not to read. And I'm pissed off because there is a movie I want to see titled "Creation" which is about the life of Charles Darwin, but it is not going to be available in the USA. I have to go overseas, yeah, I have to cross the pond if I want to watch that movie.

Last summer, it was the 400th Anniversary of when Galileo first used his telescope to observe the moon and the planets. PBS came out with a 2 hour documentary titled "400 Years of The Telescope" and before the program started, they had a disclaimer announcing that viewer discretion was advised and that the program may not be suitable for all family members.

Like, SAY WHAT???

I remember back in 1980 when PBS was showing a 13 episode series of COSMOS by Carl Sagan, and in almost every episode there was some mention of evolution, and the universe being many billions of years old.

But back then, they never said that viewer discretion was advised, nor did they ever say that the program might not be suitable for all family members.

OK, in both programs, 400 Years of The Telescope, and Carl Sagan's COSMOS, there was mention of how Galileo was persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church and the Inquisition, so both programs would be equally "controversial" but what has happened, is that since 1980, after 8 years of the Reagan Administration, and more Republican Administrations to follow, the USA has become more and more right-wing, and a program like COSMOS probably would not be shown at all now if it was just coming out.

So, we have more and more Granny Nannies out there who want to regulate more and more aspect of our lives, controlling what we consume, what we eat, drink, or smoke, and even controlling what we read or watch, or even what we say or think.

Well, all I have to say to that is . . . . .

STAY THE FUCKING HELL OUT OF MY KITCHEN, STAY THE FUCKING HELL OUT OF MY PANTRY, STAY THE FUCKING HELL OUT OF MY CUPBOARDS, STAY THE FUCKING HELL OUT OF MY FRIDGE, STAY THE FUCKING HELL OUT OF MY LIVING-ROOM, STAY THE FUCKING HELL OUT OF MY BOOK SHELVES, AND STAY THE FUCKING HELL OUT OF MY HEAD!

Now, is that a Roger wilco over and out? Is that a big 10-4? Is that an okey dokey artichokey?

Later alligators!

Now, I'm gonna smoke a cigar and have me a fucking beer!

[i_like_1981]

I'm sure beer and tobacco will never be criminalised, Fat Man, so you'll have nothing to worry about on that front. But I'm with Jerry when it comes to hard drugs. If they become legal and in higher supply on the streets, more people are going to die as a result of knowing what they're doing is legal. Like people getting drunk now... that's legal, but not lethal. Overdosing on hard drugs is lethal, and that's why it's illegal. There are people out there who'd instantly jump on the opportunity to overdose if hard drugs like crack became legal and we'd more than likely be seeing a lot more drug deaths even if the dealers weren't making as much. Alcohol and tobacco every now and again won't mess up your life. But there's a difference between those two drugs and crack cocaine. A huge difference. That's why the first two are legal and the latter is illegal. As long as hard drugs carry hard penalties, more people will be discouraged from using them, even if this won't apply to all. Some wannabe criminals don't do the crime because they can't do the time, so let's keep it a "crime".

Best regards,
i_like_1981

[Fat Man]

I'm sure beer and tobacco will never be criminalised, Fat Man, so you'll have nothing to worry about on that front. But I'm with Jerry when it comes to hard drugs. If they become legal and in higher supply on the streets, more people are going to die as a result of knowing what they're doing is legal. Like people getting drunk now... that's legal, but not lethal. Overdosing on hard drugs is lethal, and that's why it's illegal. There are people out there who'd instantly jump on the opportunity to overdose if hard drugs like crack became legal and we'd more than likely be seeing a lot more drug deaths even if the dealers weren't making as much. Alcohol and tobacco every now and again won't mess up your life. But there's a difference between those two drugs and crack cocaine. A huge difference. That's why the first two are legal and the latter is illegal. As long as hard drugs carry hard penalties, more people will be discouraged from using them, even if this won't apply to all. Some wannabe criminals don't do the crime because they can't do the time, so let's keep it a "crime".

Best regards,
i_like_1981

Actually, if drugs were legal, or at least decriminalized, it would put the street vendors out of business, just as the lifting of prohibition against alcohol and the repeal of the 18th amendment but the mobsters out of business. Then you would have to get your drugs from a pharmacy, and in limited quantities, and of course, addicts would have to be registered.

The problem is with the mandatory sentencing, just for small quantities of a drug.

I say, do away with mandatory sentencing, and allow judges to use their own discretion to decide what the sentence should be on a case by case bases and taking either aggravating or mitigating circumstances into consideration in each individual case.

Judges are suppose to be able to pass judgment in a criminal case, that's why judges are called judges in the first place.

I don't think somebody should spend for example: five years in prison just for a single gram of cocaine, or a single rock of crack. A judge should be able to decide what the sentence is to be, but mandatory sentencing does not allow a judge any option.

Now, if a person is caught with large quantities of a drug with intent to sell on the streets, then I say, throw the whole fucking book at him!

But this mandatory sentencing is actually unconstitutional.

A judge should be allowed to use his own discretion when deciding an appropriate sentence.

Maybe, a particular defendant is not bad enough to deserve the mandatory five years or whatever it is. Maybe he or she only deserves six months, or probation.

Now, does anybody agree to that?

You see, what is happening in the USA, our Congress, and our politicians are passing more and more laws than are actually necessary, making all the decisions for us.

It's getting to the point, were we are not allowed to think for ourselves anymore, or make a decision.

[Jerry McGuire]

Well, not taking into account that massive digression, I've changed your argument to show what someone can say of someone accused of another crime:

Hey! I knew a young lady who was a heroine addict. She was actually a very nice person. OK? I liked her, she had a nice pleasant personality, but she was addicted to heroine.

She had never harmed anybody in her life, and eventually she did seek treatment to overcome her addiction. She does not deserve to be locked up somewhere with people who are violent.

She was badly abuse as a child, and her own husband use to beat up on her. Some people turn to drugs, because, for a while, drugs might make you feel good. Of course, many find out that the good feeling is only temporary.

I'm not advocating drug use, or exactly legalizing drugs, I'm only saying that having small quantities for personal use only should be decriminalized, so that it would make it easier to seek treatment to over come drug addiction.

Hey! I knew a young lady who was a pedophile. She was actually a very nice person. OK? I liked her, she had a nice pleasant personality, but she was a pedophile.

She had never harmed anybody in her life, and eventually she did seek treatment to overcome her condition. She does not deserve to be locked up somewhere with people who are violent.

She was badly abuse as a child, and her own father used to touch her....etc[/quote]

Do you see how easy it is to change it and suit it to someone's own situation? Both are illegal (for different purposes of course), but sayiong "he's a nice guy, he shouldn't be locked up etc" can never work when talking about the penal system. The system doesn't care what kind of person you are. It cares about whether or not you committed a crime.

[Fat Man]

Well, not taking into account that massive digression, I've changed your argument to show what someone can say of someone accused of another crime:

Hey! I knew a young lady who was a heroine addict. She was actually a very nice person. OK? I liked her, she had a nice pleasant personality, but she was addicted to heroine.

She had never harmed anybody in her life, and eventually she did seek treatment to overcome her addiction. She does not deserve to be locked up somewhere with people who are violent.

She was badly abuse as a child, and her own husband use to beat up on her. Some people turn to drugs, because, for a while, drugs might make you feel good. Of course, many find out that the good feeling is only temporary.

I'm not advocating drug use, or exactly legalizing drugs, I'm only saying that having small quantities for personal use only should be decriminalized, so that it would make it easier to seek treatment to over come drug addiction.

Hey! I knew a young lady who was a pedophile. She was actually a very nice person. OK? I liked her, she had a nice pleasant personality, but she was a pedophile.

She had never harmed anybody in her life, and eventually she did seek treatment to overcome her condition. She does not deserve to be locked up somewhere with people who are violent.

She was badly abuse as a child, and her own father used to touch her....etc

Do you see how easy it is to change it and suit it to someone's own situation? Both are illegal (for different purposes of course), but sayiong "he's a nice guy, he shouldn't be locked up etc" can never work when talking about the penal system. The system doesn't care what kind of person you are. It cares about whether or not you committed a crime.

Excuse me, but pedophiles do harm to others, like little children. So, you're contradicting yourself.

Now, a person smoking some Marijuana is not harming anybody else, and someone snorting a line of coke, they are only harming themselves and nobody else, unless they commit crimes to support their habit. But then, they should serve time for stealing or whatever else they did to support their habit.

But if a drug addict has not committed any other crimes to support his/her habit, and all they did was use a drug, there needs to be some other alternative.

What I'm saying is, that someone who is serving five years just for a lousy gram of cocaine is taking up cell space that could be holding a rapist or a child molester, and we have overcrowding in our prisons because of the mandatory sentencing for drug use, and as a result, rapists and child molesters or other crimes far more serious than drug use have been released too early in order to lock up someone for using a drug.

I say, release the dopers (if drugs was all they did) to make more room for child molesters and rapists.

I still think they should do away with mandatory sentencing and allow the judges to use their own discretion when deciding what a sentence should be.

That's what judges use to do!

A judges is suppose to judge.

Take away a judge's discretion, then he is not really a judge anymore.

In every trial, a good judge takes into account either aggravating or mitigating circumstances when deciding what a sentence should be on a case by case bases.

One person might be a first time offender, or has never committed any violent crimes, and perhaps only deserves a year, while another person might be a real bad-ass and is known to be a threat and a danger to other people around, and hence, deserves a much longer sentence.

It use to be that there was a minimum and a maximum sentence before mandatory sentencing was instituted, which now takes away a judge's discretion and his ability to judge, making him nothing more than a parroting gavel banger.

Now, nobody is allowed to even think anymore!

[i_like_1981]

Well, people who definitely have intended to deal drugs get far stricter punishments than those who were just caught having them for personal use. But the fact stands that the police can't be too careful. Anyone with drugs on them could be a dealer or part of a group which specialises in dealing them. Besides, by arresting somebody who is taking drugs and threatening them with jail sentences, the law enforcements could get information off their convict regarding who they got the drugs from, where this person operated from etc, in return for a slightly lighter punishment. By getting a relatively minor link they could use that to work their way up the chain and find who's doing the real crime. There has to be a source and by taking in anyone who is caught using illegal drugs, they have a better chance of finding information that could lead them to that source. Personal use or not, if you make the fact known that you possess illegal drugs, then you can expect some repercussions to come along.

Best regards,
i_like_1981

[Fat Man]

Well, people who definitely have intended to deal drugs get far stricter punishments than those who were just caught having them for personal use. But the fact stands that the police can't be too careful. Anyone with drugs on them could be a dealer or part of a group which specialises in dealing them. Besides, by arresting somebody who is taking drugs and threatening them with jail sentences, the law enforcements could get information off their convict regarding who they got the drugs from, where this person operated from etc, in return for a slightly lighter punishment. By getting a relatively minor link they could use that to work their way up the chain and find who's doing the real crime. There has to be a source and by taking in anyone who is caught using illegal drugs, they have a better chance of finding information that could lead them to that source. Personal use or not, if you make the fact known that you possess illegal drugs, then you can expect some repercussions to come along.

Best regards,
i_like_1981

This is one of the reasons why I'm against mandatory sentencing.

If a person is arrested for a small amount of drugs for personal use, the law should be able to have the option to offer a lighter sentence in exchange for information that could lead to the arrest of a major big time street dealer.

That's why I say, go easy on the small time dumb doper who only has a couple of grams for personal use, and go after the big time dope dealer and throw the whole fucking book at him. The penalty for dealing should be much greater than the penalty for small amount for personal use only.

So, discretionary sentencing allows the courts to offer lighter sentencing in exchange for any information that can lead to the arrest of more serious offenders.

Also, I believe that prison should be for violent offenders only, and that some other alternative form of sentencing should be used for nonviolent offenders.

Therefore, do away with mandatory sentencing and allow discretionary sentencing.

It was politicians who voted on mandatory sentencing and a lot of them don't know jack-shit about law.

Most politicians don't know jack-shit about science either, and that's why in some states they voted to make it OK to insert creationism into high school science classes, and then, later on having to reverse their decisions when smarter lawyers representing the science teachers point out that creationism being forced into school science class violates the amendments against state sponsored religion.

So, because most politicians don't know jack-shit about law, then they have no business passing laws that make certain types of sentencing mandatory.

Leave it up to judges and attorneys who have studied law, have gone to universities and majored in law, they should be the ones to decide what type of sentencing an offender receives.

Just like I say, leave it up to scientists and science teachers who have studied science, have gone to universities and majored in science, they should be the ones who decide how science should be taught in our schools, and not a bunch of dumb-ass politicians who probably never studied science and who believe in stupid creationist fairy tails.

That's what happens when we have morons in political positions deciding what is to be taught in school.

The same is true when it comes to law. If we allow moronic politicians to pass legislation as to what kind of sentencing an offender receives, we might see people getting the death penalty just for jay-walking!

So, I say, let the experts in science decide how science is taught in our schools.

And let the experts in law decide how offenders are to be sentenced.

Also, lets concentrate on improving the quality of education in our schools. Put Charles Darwin back into the science curriculum and put Thomas Jefferson back into the history textbooks, and teach more about The Constitution.

That way, we will have a more intelligent population who will vote for more intelligent politicians and vote all the dumb-asses out of office.

But NNNNNNNOOOOOOOOO!!!

In school they only teach how to fold paper footballs, so most people don't know shit about anything, and we are becoming an Idiocracy where creationist fairy tales are being taught instead of science and in the future we'll see people being hanged in the streets just for jay-walking.

Yeah! The future is really going to suck!

[The Imperialist]

The problem as to why it is ineffective can be summarised as:
1) When they sentence users, they are usually reluctant to go much further
2) When they sentence suppliers, they usually do not follow it up with more sentencing of more suppliers- much harder to find the suppliers especially through organised syndicates.
3) Socially, it is becoming more acceptable to become complacent.

THe problem is the people are trying to allocate resources to both finding the suppliers, and clamping down on users. This is incompetence at best.

As I said in a previous post, crime is all about economic incentive. If one clamps down on the users mercilessly (ofcourse, with therapy sessions maybe instead of actual prison sentencing, but this has to be decided upon 'social experiments' and its outcome) it becomes the cycle of less and less customers to trade with, making it economically less viable to continue the trade. (Details on a previous post slightly earlier)

The third likely cause, is very hard to solve. That is how society becomes when it loses any sense of struggle, (in the national scale) and to be dystopic, we can do a Battle Royale/Ikigami/1984 approach to it, or we can do some kind of military service/talk by veterans/soft brain washing (i.e. education)/show some PHYSICAL evidence of imminent danger to society that needs to be tackled with the people's diligence and sense of duty (the terrorist thing with the Partiot Act is just stupid- there are no 'imminent' terrorists all around you because they do not actually show you where they are. I will use my homeland as an example, but one way is to point out where all the N. Korean/Chinese spies are because a lot of them are on an 'invisible leash' not knowing they are under surveillance, and as China 'overtook; our economy, that might be an incentive of sorts)

Essentially, it is about citizenship and duty, and the ways in which to instil them.

[Fat Man]

Well, personally, I really don't give a damn if my neighbor smokes a little pot or snorts a couple of lines of nose-candy, and long as he didn't steal to get his stuff.

I remember back in 1986 when I heard about crack for the very first time. It was cocaine mixed with a little baking powder and some water, and made into little lumps to dry out so it could be smoked in a little pipe.

There was a big deal over how the new form of cocaine was to be so addictive that even if you only tried it once for the very first time you were instantly addicted and hopelessly addicted.

Well, just like Reefer Madness back in 1936, the crack scare of 1986 also turned out to be bullshit.

It turns out that smoking crack is like free-basing cocaine only crack is not as dangerous to use. You can accidentally blow yourself up while free basing, which is what had happened to Richard Pryor, but a crack pipe won't explode in your face.

Yes, crack is addictive, but like any drug, you don't get addicted right away the first time you use it. I have known people who have tried snorting a line of cocaine or smoked a single rock of crack just once or twice out of curiosity just to see what it was like, and after their curiosity was satisfied, they never bother to use it again.

When I was living in Las Cruces New Mexico I once talked with a young lady who tried a line of cocaine, and she said "It was very good, I loved it, it made me very excited, it was a beautiful experience, a really fantastic high, but I will NEVER do it again!" and of course, she never went back to it again.

Yes, I have tried pot a few times, but I have never been a regular user. It's been over 20 years since the last time I smoked a joint. So yeah! I tried it. But I have never tried anything else, and I never will because I know it's bad.

Pot is no big deal! It's just a natural herb. You can make tea out of it and drink it. Marijuana tea is good for arthritis, and is probably less harmful than a lot of synthetic pain killers use for arthritis.

Common Aspirin used for headaches was once extracted from the bark of some kind if willow tree, but now it's synthetic.

So, personally, I think pot should be legalized and regulated like we now regulate alcohol, and nobody should spend several years in prison just for having a couple rocks of crack of a couple grams of cocaine just for personal use.

Come up with some alternative sentencing and reserve the prison cell for a child molester or rapist. Why should somebody take up a prison cell for several years just for a small amount of dope when that prison cell could be used to hold a more violent criminal, like a child molester or a rapist.

No, our society is very hypocritical. Football players who have committed rape have gotten off with little or no penalties, while we are releasing child molesters and rapist too early while putting people in prison just for what the have smoked or put up their noses.

We're more concerned over what people put in their own bodies, but we don't give a damn if some pervert puts his penis in some little kid.

That's why we have the ACLU, the so-called American Civil Liberties Union working with NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association to have all the age of consent laws lowered and eventually repealed just so rich old men who smell bad can have butt-sex with babies!

But we want to come down hard on people just for what they put into their own bodies.

I mean seriously! It's already got to the point where kids have been suspended from school just for having some candy or a little cup cake in their lunch boxes.

Yeah, some kid gets suspended from school for putting a piece of candy in his mouth, but the ACLU and NAMBLA wants to make it OK for some dirty old man to stick is penis into a kid!

So, as long as this shit is going on, then Americans should just shut the fuck up over what some people willingly put into their own mouths.

[The Imperialist]

The state has to be nosy about what people do. If they let people do whatever they liked, it will almost certainly unbalance the economy, budget etc., never mind the social consequences.
Ergo, it is very much the state's concern as to what people are putting in their bodies.
Likewise, what people are doing to each other.

However, rich people get away with things PRECISELY because they can balance out whatever budget/economic/social incovieniences they have created. I do agree, however, that this is way out of basic principles, and it is not good fo the system in the long run.

[i_like_1981]

The state has to be nosy about what people do. If they let people do whatever they liked, it will almost certainly unbalance the economy, budget etc., never mind the social consequences.
Ergo, it is very much the state's concern as to what people are putting in their bodies.
Likewise, what people are doing to each other.

I can agree with this comment to some extent. For example, when people are in public places, CCTV systems should be in order to survey the surrounding area and hopefully prevent people from committing crimes, and if they are not smart enough to realise that all they're doing is being captured on film which can be referred to by law enforcements and used as evidence against them, it will be utilised for the latter two purposes which I have mentioned. Keeping the outside world safe and under trustworthy eyes of enforcement is essential to discourage some from criminal activity, if not stop it completely.

But I do draw the line when it comes to spying on people from inside their homes. Seems to me that a government that would want to observe an individual or family in his residence is either paranoid or bitterly distrustful, unless there is a valid reason for putting that specific residence under surveillance, for example tapping the house of a known or alleged criminal. But to do it to people without any criminal records or suspicions... seems like unfair and unjustified invasion to privacy. People should be allowed to have some personal space that they can do and say what they like in. Society is surely not cowardly enough to want to put the personal privacy of good citizens in jeopardy just to satisfy its hopes of knowing everything. Where do you draw the line, Imperialist? Do you think people should be surveyed from inside their homes? If that happened then we'd be on the way to realising "1984".

Best regards,
i_like_1981

[Jerry McGuire]

I can agree with this comment to some extent. For example, when people are in public places, CCTV systems should be in order to survey the surrounding area and hopefully prevent people from committing crimes, and if they are not smart enough to realise that all they're doing is being captured on film which can be referred to by law enforcements and used as evidence against them, it will be utilised for the latter two purposes which I have mentioned. Keeping the outside world safe and under trustworthy eyes of enforcement is essential to discourage some from criminal activity, if not stop it completely.

Actually, England's CCTV system is highly ineffective.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/riskfactor/com ... ing-crimes

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8219022.stm

"The Telegraph says that the Metropolitan Police admit that only one crime per year is solved for every 1,000 CCTV cameras installed in the UK. There are over 1 million such cameras in London alone, and over 4 million across the UK."

That sheer number of cameras seems very Orwellian in my opinion.

[Fat Man]

The state has to be nosy about what people do. If they let people do whatever they liked, it will almost certainly unbalance the economy, budget etc., never mind the social consequences.
Ergo, it is very much the state's concern as to what people are putting in their bodies.
Likewise, what people are doing to each other.

What I do in the privacy of my own home is nobody's fucking business.

I don't do drugs because I know drugs are harmful if misused.

But someone smoking a little pot, or smoking a little crack or snorting a line of cocaine in the privacy of his own home, he or she is not hurting me. They are only harming themselves.

Now, if they're not living alone and have kids in the home, then their drug habit will cause harm to their families, and then, that must be taken into consideration. But Alcohol use, even though it's legal, will also harm their families if it is used excessively.

So, if what your are doing is harming your family, then you deserve whatever punishment the law might require of you.

But the sentencing for the use of drugs when it causes harms to your family should be treated the same as it were alcohol instead of drugs.

But again, there is a problem with the mandatory sentencing. A judge must be able to use his own discretion in deciding what the sentence should be or for how long.

The mandatory sentencing has proved to be a dismal failure because other even more dangerous and more violent criminals like rapists and child molesters had to be released too early to make room for drug offenders.

What I don't understand is why we have mandatory sentencing for drug use but no mandatory sentencing for rape or pedophilia.

Under mandatory sentencing we keep people in prison for about 5 to 10 years, and because the sentencing is mandatory there is no chance that the offender will ever get any time off for good behavior to be released on parole before his sentence is finished, as can be done with other crimes.

But because of mandatory sentencing for drug offenses, some other violent criminal who has committed rape or molested a child might get his 10 to 20 years sentence cut short and be released in less than 10 years to make room for the drug offender.

And this is what I find so hypocritical about our society.

We are more concerned with what somebody voluntarily puts into his own body than we are about some pervert who sticks his penis into a child.

Yeah, we are so damned concerned over what people put into their own mouth, and now, in the name of fighting the so-called "obesity epidemic" a kid gets suspended from school if he/she has a cupcake or some candy in his/her lunchbox.

They're not just satisfied with controlling drugs, they want to control EVERYTHING we eat or drink by not allowing vending machines in school and not allowing kids to take anything from home to school so in some schools their lunchboxes are inspected for contraband, like candy or cake.

In school, a kid is not allowed to put a piece of candy in his/her mouth but some pervert can stick his penis into a kid, and even if the pervert does go to prison for it, he gets released too fucking early to make room for somebody who but something in his mouth or snorted something up his nose.

And the ACLU and NAMBLA are working together to have the age of consent laws lowered and eventually repealed so that rich old men who smell bad can stick their penises into babies.

So, sorry kids! You're not allowed to put a little piece of candy into your mouths, but were getting the laws changed so some dirty old man can stick his penis into you.

But then, a penis stuck in you is OK because it doesn't have any calories to make you get fat, and it doesn't have any substance in it that might make you high or get stoned.

We care more about substance abuse than we do about human abuse.

DAMN US ALL TO FUCKING HELL!!!

[The Imperialist]

Well, that is the hypocrisy induced by the switiching of governments who differ on their views. That is actually no fault of the government beaurocracy, but the actual policy makers.

Besides, anything that harms the body in anyway, and will/might get you into hospital, will cost the taxpayer/the government's money. Unless you are rich and can support for any stupid acts you do by going to a private hospital, one should be sensible and stop being so selfish. This may sound very bad, but rich people at the least (most of the time) do not waste public money (ofcourse, there are exceptions, as seen with some bankers. Oh my). When people who cannot pay for all damages caused (this includes public health bill) waste public money, that is some money that could have been spent on education, defense, etc. etc. The world as it is now, those who will eventually rely on the establishment has no right to be selfish. There should be no leeway for selfishness. THis is not to say that rich people can be selfish. It is just that under the eyes of the government, they are unnecessary, and maybe preventable expenses.

For example, Fat Man, you say that people should stop nosying on your smoking habit. You say that you are not affecting anybody by doing it at the privacy of your own home, but lets consider three possible options you have;
1) You are rich enough to afford full cancer treatment at private health establishments. Fine, you are helpig the economy by spending money, so I have no right to pursue you on this matter.

2) You have insurance, therefore, your insurance company/policy wil pay for your cost. In this case, what you are doing is kind of plus-minus to the economy, as the money circulation is a net movement of 0. This is, if it is a full payment by your insurance. If you have to subsidise some percentage of the cost, you are helping the economy, so not so bad. HOWEVER, the insurance people will be thinking "Oh this bastard. He really had to smoke, and he really had to get cancer. Oh bugger. We now lost profit. Oh bugger, less bonus. Oh bugger, I cannot payoff my loans/buy gifts/buy something and add more money into circulation to help the economy. Bugger bugger bugger. Now we have to raise insurance premium for other people with similar environment" The raising of insurance premium will then force employers to dish out more money (if you are employed) and so less profit, etc. This will also mean that slightly poorer people will not be able to take out similar insurance, and so if faced with health problems not necessarily fault of their own, they are in dire condition.
Now, before you say, "An individual cannot make a difference" yes they will. One person doing a insurance claim much earlier than expected will usually at affect a lot of people. It is economics. Each penny/cent/yen etc. in the long run will affect something. The negative effect might come back to you, you never know.

3) You have no insurance, you are not rich enough and you have to rely on PUBLIC MONEY for health costs. OHHHHH boy. I really hope I don't have to explain this. It will essentially like assertion 2) but involves the government, and the general population of taxpayers, and companies that may have government contracts, and etc. etc.

4) Like above, but you rely on charities. Simply put, the money could have been used for diseases that are not the consequence of individual will.

5) Even if you do get cancer, you don't give a damn and decide to not have any treatment. This will be a plus minus situtaion, but if they find your body, they will have to use money to bury you, cremate you or whatever. This will usually cost some public money, or if it is not public money, the person paying will be left from a few dollars to a few thousand dollars short. Which might then affect other people, maybe like that person child, wife, employee etc. etc.

From my above assertions, I hope I got my message of "Whatever you do, there will be effects to other person. That effect is wholly adjustable, and is related to the individual will. Ergo, whatever you do, actually think deeper into the consequences instead of going into the 'well, I am doing it in my home so I am not affecting anybody' mentality because that is just not true".

By the way,
British CCTV is ineffective, because the damned British police authorities are famous for their inefficiency. I mean, they increase police prescence and all, but these auxiliary police aren't even given proper powers which is just stupid. It is then not helped by successive government who still believe in the bliss of the glory of the British Empire, still under the delusion that if the Queen is still their, they do not really have to change policy.
They are proud of the fact that police do not carry weapons (maybe aside from an odd taser or two), even though youth gang members are getting their hands on converted MAC-10 pistols (which then reverts to the original submachinegun design) and getting the firearm squad out seems very slow in Britain. NEVER MIND THE CCTV.