POT and Firearms... oh boy

[Jayd1981]

How exactly would you ADEQUATELY punish someone who killed an entire family because they wanted to do an 8ball and try and drive?

Life in prison? Does that make up for ALL the lives lost????

I was trying to stay out of this one, but this argument is horrible. Why don't we treat is the same way we do for those who wanted to get drunk and try and drive. NHTSA put out that over 11 thousand people were killed in 2008 by drunk drivers, yet I don't see anyone pushing to have alcohol made illegal.

I have no business telling someone what they can and cannot do if it does not affect me. When someone's choice violates anothers rights, then charge them. This pre-crime crap is sickening. If someone wants to relax at the end of the day with a joint instead of with a beer like I often like to do, who am I to say they are worse then me?

Edit: To clarify, I like to relax at the end of the day with a cold Corona. I do not support or condone drug use, I do however support people having the right to choose what goes into thier body.

 

[OrangeIsTrouble]

Okay, finished the hike, let me actually respond to the other half

You did use RCW 9.41.060, Section 8, to your advantage right?




oh btw, svg and bat, stop reading the thread!!! Get distracted!!! har har har.

 

[Tomas]

Just a short comment on this sort of activity, which we all see every day...

...
2) Some people say "legal gun owners are law abiding citizens; you wouldn't break a firearm law, so why talk about breaking a drug law. Well, hardly a week goes by that I don't see people discussing breaking firearm laws on gun forums.

Just last week I saw two separate FS ads for a gun + silencer (both in WA). In both the sellers did a nudge, nudge, wink, wink, that you can go ahead and use the silencer in WA because A) an officer has to SEE you use it to arrest you and B) it's only a misdemeanor. Do I approve of such behavior? I could care less, not my business. I would never use a silencer in WA, but for others it is their choice to assume the risk.

A few years back it was also a very popular topic to explain that in California, if caught illegally CCWing, your first offense would be a misdemeanor. Many people openly said that they carry, and will do so until they are caught that first time.
...

I've often heard it said that an honest person obeys the rules even when there is no chance of getting caught.

If a person weighs the chance of being caught and uses the chance of getting caught as the inducement to follow the rules, their behavior in not moral, but opportunistic.

Those are the folks who don't even have the integrity and self worth not to cheat at solitaire...

Doesn't matter if it is gun laws, software agreements, copyright, speed limits or drug laws, if the only reason you don't do something is because you might get caught, or in other words, you feel OK about breaking rules if you know you will not be caught, you are neither honest nor moral.

Unless one is personally honest and moral, one has no right to berate others for breaking rules...

:lol:

 

[Jayd1981]

I like the way you described an honest person Thomas. However, I would say it also involves doing what is "right". We all know everything that is a law is not neccessarily right. Several of us knowingly violate city gun laws because the law itself is wrong.

I would say another attribute of someone who is honest and moral is to stand up for what is right even when it doesn't affect them.

 

[devildoc5]

I was trying to stay out of this one, but this argument is horrible. Why don't we treat is the same way we do for those who wanted to get drunk and try and drive. NHTSA put out that over 11 thousand people were killed in 2008 by drunk drivers, yet I don't see anyone pushing to have alcohol made illegal.

I have no business telling someone what they can and cannot do if it does not affect me. When someone's choice violates anothers rights, then charge them. This pre-crime crap is sickening. If someone wants to relax at the end of the day with a joint instead of with a beer like I often like to do, who am I to say they are worse then me?

Edit: To clarify, I like to relax at the end of the day with a cold Corona. I do not support or condone drug use, I do however support people having the right to choose what goes into thier body.

I agree to the extent of there needs to be MORE strict punishments for DUI, whether it be under the influence of Alchiehol, recreational drugs, medical prescriptions, or even Kool-aid.

The reason I brought that point up was that whether or not drugs BECOME legal (they are not currently legal as we all know, on the Federal level at least) there needs to be equitable punishments that fit the crime. Not some "pay a thousand dollars and go to A meetings for 6 months then you can get your license back) crap...

 

[Jayd1981]

I agree to the extent of there needs to be MORE strict punishments for DUI, whether it be under the influence of Alchiehol, recreational drugs, medical prescriptions, or even Kool-aid.

The reason I brought that point up was that whether or not drugs BECOME legal (they are not currently legal as we all know, on the Federal level at least) there needs to be equitable punishments that fit the crime. Not some "pay a thousand dollars and go to A meetings for 6 months then you can get your license back) crap...

I'm pretty sure if you kill someone while driving drunk, that the penalty is not "pay a thousand dollars and go to A meetings for 6 months then you can get your license back". I would bet that your looking more at involuntary manslaughter at a minimum (unless your last name is Kennedy).

 

[Dave_pro2a]

Just a short comment on this sort of activity, which we all see every day...


I've often heard it said that an honest person obeys the rules even when there is no chance of getting caught.

If a person weighs the chance of being caught and uses the chance of getting caught as the inducement to follow the rules, their behavior in not moral, but opportunistic.

Those are the folks who don't even have the integrity and self worth not to cheat at solitaire...

Doesn't matter if it is gun laws, software agreements, copyright, speed limits or drug laws, if the only reason you don't do something is because you might get caught, or in other words, you feel OK about breaking rules if you know you will not be caught, you are neither honest nor moral.

Unless one is personally honest and moral, one has no right to berate others for breaking rules...

:lol:

Everyone lies, everyone breaks the law.

Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent by Harvey Silverglate

http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonie...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1284346773&sr=8-1

 

[gogodawgs]

I'm pretty sure if you kill someone while driving drunk, that the penalty is not "pay a thousand dollars and go to A meetings for 6 months then you can get your license back". I would bet that your looking more at involuntary manslaughter at a minimum (unless your last name is Kennedy).

Well, it is not as severe as you might think. Four days before graduation in June two classmates of my daughters were killed by a drunk driver. For that the maximum time he is looking at is 3-5 years. For intentional murder, in my opinion. (This was not his first, but third offense)

 

[devildoc5]

I actually know a few people NOT FRIENDS!!! that have gotten NUMEROUS DUI's. One got 8 DUI's in 4 years! He got out of jail everyday to go to work and then had to come back after he got off of work. He got to keep his license the ENTIRE time because he worked as a valet and it was needed to perform his job!!! He ended up serving 2 years in jail (during the work release) and paid a total of 1000$ if I recall correctly....

Another person I know got 2 DUI's in 3 years, first time was told that they had to pay a 1500$ administrative fee and upon completion of alcohol tereatment they could return to court and petition the court to get their license back. Second time he did 6 months in jail and paid 3000$...

This is in two COMPLETELY different states.

The thing to remember is that the MAXIMUM sentence can always be lowered by the judge and that there is hardly ever a SUBSTANTIAL penalty for DUI unless someone is killed. Does that mean however it should be illegal to drink and rive ONLY if you kill someone?


Also GoGo dont forget that he will be credited for time served prior to sentencing as well as given 1.5 days for everyday he is in if he behaves. All told the guy could be out in less than a year...

 

[Tomas]

Everyone lies, everyone breaks the law.

Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent by Harvey Silverglate

http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonie...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1284346773&sr=8-1

An interesting, and sadly too true, book.

Reminded me of an interesting idea put forth by RA Heinlein in a novel* back in '66...

There are simply too many laws, rules, regulations, tariffs, treaties, too much cruft in our legal system. We would ALL be better off if a lot of it were cleaned out. Legislators apparently don't feel they are getting anything accomplished unless they are actively creating even more limits on what citizens can legally do.

* The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

 

[sudden valley gunner]

How exactly would you ADEQUATELY punish someone who killed an entire family because they wanted to do an 8ball and try and drive?

Life in prison? Does that make up for ALL the lives lost????

How do you adequately punish anyone for taking innocent lives. Ted Bundy's life wasn't worth the dozens perhaps into the hundreds of lives he took. (side note he was a Republican) So should we outlaw guns? Jeez 30,000 people a year loose their lives in U.S. by guns.

Show any stats were marijuana was the cause of someone loosing thier life, and I don't mean in the illicit trade of it where mass amounts of money are on the line. But from the use of it? From someone being high on it and driving ( paranoid and driving slow, hard to kill folks that way)

Again yes it is illegal (not really) now, but this discussion should be whether it should be legal. Soon here in Washington you might be able to go to the state liquore store and buy it too. It has been proposed.

When it is legal ( it will be) will I partake? Probably not.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

+1

So you really aren't that libertarian are you? Ron Paul would be disappointed.

 

[KBCraig]

I've often heard it said that an honest person obeys the rules even when there is no chance of getting caught.

I prefer to believe that a righteous honest person breaks unjust rules even when he knows he will be caught.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison... the only house in a slave State in which a free man can abide with honor.
- Henry David Thoreau

 

[sudden valley gunner]

t

Your first statement has some truth to it in the current political/social climate. However, neither SVG or myself have promoted carry and intoxication together. We have attempted to seperate the issue and place it under the umbrella of liberty. You have refused to accept this premise. You have refused to look at the similarities with other drugs that are legal.

Your second statement is patently false. I have zero stake in pot, zero! I choose to look at the liberty of others and the reality of the drug pot and how it is not so different than other drugs that are legal. I choose to be honest about how the 'war on drugs', in direct relation to pot is an absolute failure.

Your last statement is so close minded and stereotypical it shows your inability to examine the subject in an objective manner. I have met many upper class businessmen and women who use the drug recreationally and it is not the only thing on their mind.

Are you really surprised? This type of trollish behavior has been his M.O. since the beginning. I even think he is so full of himself that he is incapable of honest discussion and seeing others viewpoints. Even on his points I agree on, he gotta tell others who disagree to go "piss up a rope". Which is sad cuz sometimes he has valid arguments and thought provoking points but it's lost in his acting like an A-hole. And in his all consuming hubris and large mental blocks he can never conceive how anyone else could possibly have a valid view point that is contradictory to his own.

And if you really get under his skin like I apparently have he sends you nasty letters.

So he has the distinct honor of being the only person on the thousands here, (and there are a few I don't like) to be on my ignore list. Although I pretty much have ignored him before that feature was installed.

 

[Jayd1981]

Well, it is not as severe as you might think. Four days before graduation in June two classmates of my daughters were killed by a drunk driver. For that the maximum time he is looking at is 3-5 years. For intentional murder, in my opinion. (This was not his first, but third offense)

I found the actual charge you would get for killing someone by driving drunk. RCW 46.61.520 Vehiclular Homicide. It is a Class A felony so they could get life imprisonment. I would suspect the offender in your post was able to plea that down to 3-5. It is horrible that they gave him that kind of deal on his third offense though. But the point is that killing someone while driving drunk is not looked upon as a petty crime where you lose your license for a year and pay a one thousand dollar fine as was suggested earlier. I see no reason why we can not apply the same penalties to anyone who drives while high and kills someone.

 

[gogodawgs]

I found the actual charge you would get for killing someone by driving drunk. RCW 46.61.520 Vehiclular Homicide. It is a Class A felony so they could get life imprisonment. I would suspect the offender in your post was able to plea that down to 3-5. It is horrible that they gave him that kind of deal on his third offense though. But the point is that killing someone while driving drunk is not looked upon as a petty crime where you lose your license for a year and pay a one thousand dollar fine as was suggested earlier. I see no reason why we can not apply the same penalties to anyone who drives while high and kills someone.

Unfortunately you are incorrect. Standard sentencing is 3-5 years for both deaths, with no plea. Check out page 238

http://www.sgc.wa.gov/PUBS/Adult_Manual/Manual_2008_Section_3.pdf

 

[Jayd1981]

Unfortunately you are incorrect. Standard sentencing is 3-5 years for both deaths, with no plea. Check out page 238

http://www.sgc.wa.gov/PUBS/Adult_Manual/Manual_2008_Section_3.pdf

I stand corrected. I only found the maximum sentencing, not that worksheet. However if that was his 3rd drinking and driving offence it should have been 67 - 89 months. Regardless that is way to lenient, I would definately agree with much harsher punishments in this instance.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I stand corrected. I only found the maximum sentencing, not that worksheet. However if that was his 3rd drinking and driving offence it should have been 67 - 89 months. Regardless that is way to lenient, I would definately agree with much harsher punishments in this instance.

The Everett police deal out harsher penalties.

 

[Aaron1124]

So you really aren't that libertarian are you? Ron Paul would be disappointed.

Apparently I have to promote - or at least support promotion of illegal drug use to be a libertarian.

 

[devildoc5]

I found the actual charge you would get for killing someone by driving drunk. RCW 46.61.520 Vehiclular Homicide. It is a Class A felony so they could get life imprisonment. I would suspect the offender in your post was able to plea that down to 3-5. It is horrible that they gave him that kind of deal on his third offense though. But the point is that killing someone while driving drunk is not looked upon as a petty crime where you lose your license for a year and pay a one thousand dollar fine as was suggested earlier. I see no reason why we can not apply the same penalties to anyone who drives while high and kills someone.

Ok here seems to be the point you are failing to miss:

it is called Driving Under the Influence, not Driving While Drunk. There is a BIG difference. Under the Influence could be under the influnece of cough syrup if it impairs your ability to drive appropriately. My problem is the fact that there is NOT scrict enough sentencing for DUI's.

You stated earlier that the offense for vehicular homicide is such and such yada yada yada, and that I HAD to be wrong about a few months and a couple dollars for DUI.

NO WHERE in my post did I state that Vehicular Homicide was that lenient, just that DUI was.

DUI is

(6) It is a class C felony punishable under chapter 9.94A RCW, or chapter 13.40 RCW if the person is a juvenile, if: (a) The person has four or more prior offenses within ten years as defined in RCW 46.61.5055; or (b) the person has ever previously been convicted of (i) vehicular homicide while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, RCW 46.61.520(1)(a), (ii) vehicular assault while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, RCW 46.61.522(1)(b), or (iii) an out-of-state offense comparable to the offense specified in (b)(i) or (ii) of this subsection.

otherwise:

RCW 46.61.502

Driving under the influence.


</B>(1) A person is guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug if the person drives a vehicle within this state:

(a) And the person has, within two hours after driving, an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or higher as shown by analysis of the person's breath or blood made under RCW 46.61.506; or

(b) While the person is under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor or any drug; or

(c) While the person is under the combined influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor and any drug.

(2) The fact that a person charged with a violation of this section is or has been entitled to use a drug under the laws of this state shall not constitute a defense against a charge of violating this section.

(3) It is an affirmative defense to a violation of subsection (1)(a) of this section which the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant consumed a sufficient quantity of alcohol after the time of driving and before the administration of an analysis of the person's breath or blood to cause the defendant's alcohol concentration to be 0.08 or more within two hours after driving. The court shall not admit evidence of this defense unless the defendant notifies the prosecution prior to the omnibus or pretrial hearing in the case of the defendant's intent to assert the affirmative defense.

(4) Analyses of blood or breath samples obtained more than two hours after the alleged driving may be used as evidence that within two hours of the alleged driving, a person had an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more in violation of subsection (1)(a) of this section, and in any case in which the analysis shows an alcohol concentration above 0.00 may be used as evidence that a person was under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor or any drug in violation of subsection (1)(b) or (c) of this section.

(5) Except as provided in subsection (6) of this section, a violation of this section is a gross misdemeanor.

So basically what this is saying is that you can have 4 DUI's in a ten year period BEFORE you are even charged with a Class C Felony....

Also take a quick look at page 88 of that link GoGo sent. You will find that even after 3 DUI's the offender gets a 12-14 month sentence (plus then you have to take time off ofr good behavior)....Plus you gotta look at the very bottom of page 88 where it says they are elligible for "alternative sentencing".....

How exactly is that "being tough" on Drunk Drivers?