Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
well, maybe not smoking 1 joint, but if you are in possession of less than 3/4 ounce bag of pot, it's a felony in Florida...a felony for possession of just 20 grams.....What states?
a citizen should NOT lose their right to vote for their gvt representation for that kind of crime.....period.
Yes, they should.. they are fully aware of the law (that pot is illegal), else the dumb asses would be trying to walk up to their WalMart or pharmacist asking to buy pot over the counter... and if you willingly break the law, you must indeed pay the price... including losing your privilege of voting
Drugs laws are a travesty. They should be abolished.
Drugs laws are a travesty. They should be abolished.
As far as Pot goes - yes I agree
But what about Crack, crank, special K, dope, mollies, Ecstasy, mescaline, LSD, oxycodeine, oxycotton, oxymorons and liberals
well, maybe not smoking 1 joint, but if you are in possession of less than 3/4 ounce bag of pot, it's a felony in Florida...a felony for possession of just 20 grams.....
a citizen should NOT lose their right to vote for their gvt representation for that kind of crime.....period.
Yes, they should.. they are fully aware of the law (that pot is illegal), else the dumb asses would be trying to walk up to their WalMart or pharmacist asking to buy pot over the counter... and if you willingly break the law, you must indeed pay the price... including losing your privilege of voting
That assumes all laws are just, and there is nothing just about locking someone up for two years for smoking a harmless weed.
Drugs laws are a travesty. They should be abolished.
I've always said the cons are one of the main Democrat constituencies.
Jail survey: Nearly 3/4 felons register as Democrats | WashingtonExaminer.com
A new study of how criminals vote found that most convicts register Democratic, a key reason in why liberal lawmakers and governors are eager for them to get back into the voting booth after their release.
Democrats would benefit from additional ex-felon participation, said the authoritative study in The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.
Liberals = Mom/Female
Conservatives = Dad/Male
well, maybe not smoking 1 joint, but if you are in possession of less than 3/4 ounce bag of pot, it's a felony in Florida...a felony for possession of just 20 grams.....
a citizen should NOT lose their right to vote for their gvt representation for that kind of crime.....period.
Yes, they should.. they are fully aware of the law (that pot is illegal), else the dumb asses would be trying to walk up to their WalMart or pharmacist asking to buy pot over the counter... and if you willingly break the law, you must indeed pay the price... including losing your privilege of voting
That assumes all laws are just, and there is nothing just about locking someone up for two years for smoking a harmless weed.
Drugs laws are a travesty. They should be abolished.
Boy, you are stupid.The franchise may not be denied on account of race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, or age (for those of majority age).Only applies to felons.
And voting is not a right.
The 19th amendment refers to it as a right:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
It may be denied citizens otherwise, simply by virtue of who they are. That is, this "right" is a privilege (a state-granted privilege).
Only applies to felons.
And voting is not a right.
Yes it is. The right to vote is the only weapon the people have against tyranny by the government.
Actually it's a privilege, as convicted criminals that are serving long prison sentences can justifiably have such privileges taken away.
Stupid.Boy, you are stupid.The franchise may not be denied on account of race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, or age (for those of majority age).The 19th amendment refers to it as a right:
It may be denied citizens otherwise, simply by virtue of who they are. That is, this "right" is a privilege (a state-granted privilege).
I guess the "right" to bear arms is a privilege, too, since the state can deny it to citizens simply by virtue of who they are!
Only applies to felons.
And voting is not a right.
The 19th amendment refers to it as a right:
Actually the Founders supported taking voting privileges away.
1789: Founders Connect Right to Vote in National Elections to State Voting Law
The US Constitution connects voting in national (federal) elections and state voting law. Under the old Articles of Confederation, ratified in 1777, states retained control over citizen voting rights, including the ability of a state government to take the right of voting away from a citizen under certain circumstances (see 1764 - 1776)
To read the history of cases (1764 - 1857) to which supported the removal of an individual's right to vote, therefore making it a privilege of those not convicted as a criminal, see the link below
Context of '1789: Founders Connect Right to Vote in National Elections to State Voting Law'
Does the restoration of civil rights to felons apply to all civil rights? If a man can be trusted in a voting booth why can't he be trusted to own a gun?
Most notable in this regard is Californias three strikes and youre out law, under which any felony following two previous strikes can result in a life term in prison. A recent high-profile example is the case of Leandro Andrade, whose third strike involved thefts of childrens videotapes worth $153 and intended as Christmas gifts for his nieces. In affirming the conviction, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the California law in 2003 and he is now serving a sentence of 50 years to Life.
The number of lifers in prison rose by 83% from 69,845 in 1992 to 127,677 in 2003.
The rate of violent crime (more relevant for lifers than total crime) rose by 40% from 1984 to 1992, but declined by 35% from 1992 to 2002 (2003 figures not yet available). While the rate of violent crime is not unrelated to the number of lifers, clearly factors other than crime rates have contributed to those trends.
These changes can be seen in the experience of a number of states in recent years:
"Guidelines" and mandatory minimums have much to do with our world record prison population, along with three strike laws.
Most notable in this regard is Californias three strikes and youre out law, under which any felony following two previous strikes can result in a life term in prison. A recent high-profile example is the case of Leandro Andrade, whose third strike involved thefts of childrens videotapes worth $153 and intended as Christmas gifts for his nieces. In affirming the conviction, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the California law in 2003 and he is now serving a sentence of 50 years to Life.
We can't call ourselves the freest nation on Earth if we have the highest prison population. Highest number, and highest per 100,000. Either way you look at it, we have a pretty shameful record.
The number of life sentences skyrocketed while violent crime was declining.
The number of lifers in prison rose by 83% from 69,845 in 1992 to 127,677 in 2003.
The rate of violent crime (more relevant for lifers than total crime) rose by 40% from 1984 to 1992, but declined by 35% from 1992 to 2002 (2003 figures not yet available). While the rate of violent crime is not unrelated to the number of lifers, clearly factors other than crime rates have contributed to those trends.
These changes can be seen in the experience of a number of states in recent years:
Does the restoration of civil rights to felons apply to all civil rights? If a man can be trusted in a voting booth why can't he be trusted to own a gun?
Does the restoration of civil rights to felons apply to all civil rights? If a man can be trusted in a voting booth why can't he be trusted to own a gun?
That depends, can you shoot someone with a voting booth?
Does the restoration of civil rights to felons apply to all civil rights? If a man can be trusted in a voting booth why can't he be trusted to own a gun?
That depends, can you shoot someone with a voting booth?
Can you control a criminal's behavior with laws?
Yes, they should.. they are fully aware of the law (that pot is illegal), else the dumb asses would be trying to walk up to their WalMart or pharmacist asking to buy pot over the counter... and if you willingly break the law, you must indeed pay the price... including losing your privilege of voting
That assumes all laws are just, and there is nothing just about locking someone up for two years for smoking a harmless weed.
Drugs laws are a travesty. They should be abolished.
No.. drug laws are not a travesty.. just as drunk driving laws are not a travesty, indecent exposure laws are not a travesty, and many other 'protection' laws that keep deadly things out of the hands of the public... it is not like these drugs are sugar or peanut butter...
Now, is pot less bad than heroin or crack?? Yes indeed.. BUT.. the precedent of making it legal for use opens the door for the other drugs becoming legal.. and I would rather keep the status quo than have that path opened up...
And the fact remains that they do know it is illegal.. and they willingly break the law.. and they must pay the price for it
The 19th amendment refers to it as a right:
Actually the Founders supported taking voting privileges away.
1789: Founders Connect Right to Vote in National Elections to State Voting Law
The US Constitution connects voting in national (federal) elections and state voting law. Under the old Articles of Confederation, ratified in 1777, states retained control over citizen voting rights, including the ability of a state government to take the right of voting away from a citizen under certain circumstances (see 1764 - 1776)
To read the history of cases (1764 - 1857) to which supported the removal of an individual's right to vote, therefore making it a privilege of those not convicted as a criminal, see the link below
Context of '1789: Founders Connect Right to Vote in National Elections to State Voting Law'
The removal of rights applies to ALL rights, not just the right to vote.
You have zero understanding of due process.
