Quote:
Originally Posted by policemedic
Unfortunately, there usually is, at least in my experience.
Zero tolerance, by the way, is very often common sense at its most basic level. You simply don't think it should apply to the use of illicit drugs because you have a particular opinion on the subject, marijuana specifically. Would you advocate less than zero tolerance for other crimes?
I have an opinion as well, from both a legal and medical standpoint. While I could dispute the claim that marijuana is harmless, I don't need to do so to make my point.
Taking the charges at face value, and assuming convictions, the public drunkenness and weed/paraphernalia charges should make this person ineligible for a PA LTCF under 6109 (e)(1)(vi), and 6109 (e)(1)(vii).
One could also make the argument, taking everything at face value, that this person has a substance abuse issue not restricted to marijuana.
One could also take it further by theorizing about where the marijuana came from. It seems to me that either the person grew it himself (thus committing more offenses) or that he bought it (thus associating himself with criminals, and committing more offenses).
I'm sorry, but I cannot support a drug user who wants to carry firearms. There are too many concerns attendant to this issue.
|
As a person who has never smoked or done drugs EVER, and count on one hand the drinks I have had I feel comfortable giving an opinion.
Most of the laws we have on the books such as murder, rape, robery, reckless driving, tax evasion, ext... exist because when a person breaks them they cause harm to someone else. The same can not be said for ingesting substances of any kind. Actually, existing laws would cover any issues as they come up. DUI, harassment, ext... so I would be fine with removing laws in cases where the person is not harming anyone.
I also think less importance should be paid to speeding and more to reckless driving. However, "reckless" is subjective and we have radar guns so I doubt that will happen.