• splonglo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Absolutely. The right say they’re pro-freedom but they’ll strip you of the right to vote if you smoke weed.

    • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Coincidentally one of the reasons that led to the prohibition of cannabis.

      Who smoked weed? Black people, brown people, and when the war on drugs really ramped up…hippies.

      Nowadays most rational people realized the war on drugs was bunk and people of all walks and colors smoke weed.

      I doubt it’s a coincidence that the states that haven’t decriminalized yet are the ones that still love to hassle PoCs and hippies the most.

      • CashewNut 🏴󠁢󠁥󠁧󠁿@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        It was Mexicans too. It’s where the “lazy Mexican sleeping in the shade” comes from.

        If you’re willing to question cannabis legality maybe look at other drugs too. Coca leaves were chewed by native tribes millennia ago to help with long journeys. Kratom was used in Asia to help with long harvest days. Celts were eating shrooms millennia ago.

        Humanity has a LONG history of drug use with nothing off-limits and there was no societal collapse from it. It’s the past century puritan ideals that are a serious aberration.

        Did you know it’s statistically more dangerous to go horse riding than take Molly? The toilets in the UK Parliament were tested for cocaine and all tested positive. No drug should be illegal.

        Ref:

  • _number8_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    the right wing ethos that boils my blood the quickest is when people drool out shit like ‘play stupid games win stupid prizes’ under a story about some guy getting brutally beaten by police for being at a protest or stealing a dvd

      • Axiochus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yes, but not only that. His murder is emblematic of a general culture of taking away the rights of people who do not fall in line with the regime.

  • 52fighters@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    A right to remain silent. A right to a competent attorney regardless of ability to pay. A right to due process. A right to a timely trial by a jury of peers. A right to healthy food, shelter, healthcare, and other accommodations while incarcerated. I’m probably missing a few.

    • Uvine_Umbra@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      Same thing as before, just dont block them from voting, serving jury duty, healthcare, jobs, etc after release, prison fees be damned.

      You’ll get life, most of it, or execution for murder, rape, significant theft, etc regardless.

      Besides, limiting their rights creates more crime, as it locks away job opportunities that would help discourage stealing or killing plus gives them no incentive to work with police & government. If they move to crime again, lock em up again but for much longer. Not hard.

      Does that work for you?

      • sanpedropeddler@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        So not allowing someone to serve jury duty is limiting their rights, but its not limiting their rights to imprison of execute them? Also, even after being freed some people should have less rights. I don’t care how much time a pedophile served, they should never be allowed to work anywhere near children. A drunk driver shouldn’t be able to drive again for a long time.

        Properly dealing with crime forces you to revoke some people’s rights at least temporarily. I’m ok with trying to minimize that after time is served, but there is no changing that.

        • Uvine_Umbra@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Made a 5 page response at first literally citing the Universal Declaration of Human rights, but others who responded when i was done did much better at explaining, so I will just add:

          There’s no reason to stop inmates from voting except for preconceived notions that they are any less human or competent than anyone else. I promise you they aren’t.

          Jury duty? There are already exemptions. Add in prison.

          Just being on someone else’s property, whether the government, a school, store, etc is a priviledge.

          Same with having a job, much less at a type of institution. My awful vision means i am unable to work in the military. Working in the military was never a right in the first place. Nor is working near or at children’s institutions.

          Driving is a priviledge. Visit a city with good public transit, cycleways, & ample walkways & this will be made obvious. If driving feels like a necesity & thus a right, then that’s a problem with your city, but i digress…

          Forced labor in prison camps? Basically indentured servitude. Should be voluntary otherwise you lose benefits, nothing like toilets or clothes or food & water for example.

          Can’t restrict their ability to read books & learn.

          No civil asset forfeiture except to pay off charges from trial (fraud, miney laundering, theft, etc), she even so, when they leave they should be returned a check or cash value equivalent to everything they once owned, minus charges from verdict of course. Otherwise it literally becomes police sponsored theft.

          • sanpedropeddler@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            Look dude, its very simple. Putting people in prison is limiting their rights. Therefore, punishing criminals requires limiting their rights to some extent. You don’t need multiple paragraphs, and you certainly don’t need 5 pages.

            • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              9 months ago

              Look dude, it’s very simple: some rights of criminals need to be restricted for practical reasons. Most don’t, and those that don’t shouldn’t be.

                • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  Ok good. I don’t think anyone is really arguing otherwise except for the most hardcore anarchists, who seem like generally unreasonable people. (Like, you’re not going to stop anyone from doing whatever they want? What if what they want to do is create a government that enforces its will on everyone?)

    • _number8_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      “cRiMe” is not the issue, the unmet needs of people that motivate them to circumvent the system are the issue

      • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        I’m generally against cops and “tough on crime” measures but you only have to look at a few high profile criminals to see that some extremely destructive crimes are committed by people whose every conceivable material need is met. Trump in particular is a great example. He’s also a great example of what happens certain crimes are not prosecuted.