Teen faces potential life sentence in prison for illegal brownie recipe

[88GT]

Any decision by a majority is going to **** off some segment of the minority

And? Is it your argument that laws are written to **** off the least amount of people?

- even if the majority leans toward liberty.

The only people who will be pissed at laws that enhance liberty are the ones that directly benefit--either by purse or by patronage--from stepping on the backs of others. Do you really want me to feel sorry for the takers who participate in legalized theft?

The law is all about drawing lines. If the line drawing is unanimous, no problem. But that is exceedingly rare, eh?

Is that what they teach you in law school? Laws are arbitrary and capricious in their intent based solely on the prevailing whims of the majority of the population at the time?

But again, we might be arguing in circles. Pick an example where either side is reasonable - we have to bridge a river in one of two places, both cost the exact same amount, and the owners of either site don't want it on their land. Some people want it in one place, maybe closer/further from them depending on their goals. Comes down to a vote. Even if the "losing" owner doesn't like it, the majority has to decide.

It's private property. You might want to use a different example. Or at least include all the factors that go into the decision, like eminent domain, fair market value compensation, takings, etc. The state can't just erect a bridge on private land for public throughway because it wants to.

Let's use a different example. Natural pharmaceuticals. Some people want them banned. Some people don't. Does the majority get to decide what should ultimately be a personal choice? Do I have any right to come into your home and tell you how to live your life? No, right? You'd tell me to get lost or some version thereof. Why in the world would you think that I could net the same result using the government as my muscle?

 

[rambone]

In a system like ours, the majority will always be "oppressive" of the minority. That's the way voting works

So you're saying that you hate elections?

 

[T.Lex]

What part of personal decisions did you not understand? What I eat. What I drink. What I inhale. What I medicate with. What I wear. Where I live. What I live in. How it's built. What I drive. What I read. How I raise my kids. What I believe.

Great - so you are in favor of allowing gay marriage?

No use being coy. Your personal beliefs are as transparent as the air we breathe. Making them known isn't limited to what you believe is an explicit statement. No big deal. You're a statist. I just wondered why you had a problem with people being free to discriminate.

Believe what you want, but you don't know me at all. And I'm ok with that.

I believe down to my core that it should be his prerogative. I don't have to be happy about something to accept that it is the way it should be.

So what if no one at all would rent to you? What would you do?

The majority of Americans are selfish pricks whose greatest concern in life is "how to get what's owed to me." The few of us who still operate on the antiquated "How to get what I can earn" are the ones who suffer under that majority tyranny you say doesn't exist.

You misunderstand my point. I'll try to state it more clearly.

Reasonable people once thought minorities weren't human, that it was okay to bleed for health reasons, and that alcohol should be a banned substance. What changed? Either reasonable people were right, which means we are now unreasonable people. Or reasonable people were wrong, which means they weren't reasonable people.

You are equating reasonable with right. It doesn't really work like that. (BTW, sometimes it is ok to bleed for health reasons.)

No, the mechanism isn't the problem. It's the corruption of the mechanism. Where is the protection for the minority of people who feel that the do-gooder, morality police are infringing on our rights? You don't think it's possible to have near-absolute tyranny at the state-level even though the process is the best possible one for a free, self-governing people?

In the US, the courts protect the minority (and the Senate to a lesser extent).

I think I see one core issue where we disagree. I believe rights are not absolute - people make choices that could result in losing rights or having them limited. As I understand it, you believe some rights are absolute.

And the Constitution has done little to stop the feds from enacting the tyranny the authors intended it to stop.

And yet, it has also protected the minority from multitudes of minor tyrannies, too.

Like life, it is a mixed bag.

 

[T.Lex]

So you're saying is that you hate elections?

Au contraire, mon ami, I love elections.

And? Is it your argument that laws are written to **** off the least amount of people?

In a sense, that's not a bad way to summarize it!

It's private property. You might want to use a different example. Or at least include all the factors that go into the decision, like eminent domain, fair market value compensation, takings, etc. The state can't just erect a bridge on private land for public throughway because it wants to.

I apologize, I meant to imply all that by saying the "cost" would be the same for each. It is hypothetical designed to further the discussion. For purposes of the hypothetical, let's say all of those things equal out so that there are 2 choices - neither of which have the consent of the homeowner. Options are: site 1, site 2, or no bridge.

Let's use a different example. Natural pharmaceuticals. Some people want them banned. Some people don't. Does the majority get to decide what should ultimately be a personal choice?

In our system, yes.

Do I have any right to come into your home and tell you how to live your life? No, right? You'd tell me to get lost or some version thereof. Why in the world would you think that I could net the same result using the government as my muscle?

Consider that some kinds of addictive drug use, while superficially "victimless" does tend to have societal costs.

Again, I'm not saying I agree or disagree, just pointing out that some of these issues are not nearly as cut and dry as you think they are.

 

[Bunnykid68]

So, if the majority decided a certain class of people could legally be paid half of minimum wage you would be ok with that because it is the will of the majority?

Our entire system was set up to keep things like that from happening because the will of the mob is ignorance and greed.

 

[88GT]

Great - so you are in favor of allowing gay marriage?

I am in favor of opening up the civil legal contract of spousal privilege to anybody who wishes to participate. I'll even go so far as to say that I would have no problem with multiple parties to the contract. Marriage, on the other hand, is not what the state governs. And I have no authority to determine whether or not "gay" marriage is acceptable. It's above my pay grade, if you will.

Believe what you want, but you don't know me at all. And I'm ok with that.

What is this? Junior high? I know enough to know that you are a statist. Or dishonest. You can't make the posts you make without being one or the other.

So what if no one at all would rent to you? What would you do?

Relocate. Someone somewhere values money over prejudices. Thankfully, that is becoming more common.

You are equating reasonable with right. It doesn't really work like that. (BTW, sometimes it is ok to bleed for health reasons.)

As you have clearly demonstrated, failing on both parts. (Perhaps I should have been more clear. "Okay" was a generic term used to denote cathartic, beneficial, useful. It has almost no value as a medical procedure. I find one exception. Which is ironic since the identification of the exception came well after the use of bloodletting fell out of favor.)

In the US, the courts protect the minority (and the Senate to a lesser extent).

I think you are confusing what is supposed to happen with reality because the courts are as complicit in the expansion of tyranny as Congress and the Executive.

I think I see one core issue where we disagree. I believe rights are not absolute - people make choices that could result in losing rights or having them limited. As I understand it, you believe some rights are absolute.

You're confusing due process with infringement. I will never argue that rights cannot be limited based on due process after finding the individual guilty of some crime. Infringement is when rights are limited without any due process or conviction of a crime. One happens after the bad deed. The other happens in its absence.

And yet, it has also protected the minority from multitudes of minor tyrannies, too.

So because it has had some success, the utter failures--the very results the authors forever intended to avoid--are what? We just shrug our shoulders and say, "Ah, well. It works some of the time."

Like life, it is a mixed bag.

Which is the statist's way of saying that some tyranny is okay because I will ultimately benefit. What rights are you willing to have taken from you today?

In a sense, that's not a bad way to summarize it!

And when the majority opposed firearms, you'll hop on the bandwagon and support a complete prohibition. When the majority is religious, you'll stand back and let them impose their theocracy, no matter how much it clashes with the Constitution?

I apologize, I meant to imply all that by saying the "cost" would be the same for each. It is hypothetical designed to further the discussion. For purposes of the hypothetical, let's say all of those things equal out so that there are 2 choices - neither of which have the consent of the homeowner. Options are: site 1, site 2, or no bridge.

Are we discussing which option is better? Because I thought the purpose in your original hypothetical was to try to justify the use of majority rule over individuals. I don't care which option is better so I'm not even going to go that route. And if we're back to the original one, then you have to consider the other factors because that's the proper process.

In our system, yes.

And you wonder why you're considered a statist.

In essence, you believe that majority rule is sufficient to govern people regardless of the restrictions or infringement it puts on their natural liberties. So long as the majority approves of it, it's good to go. There's no higher standard of liberty that you will use to measure the law other than its level of acceptability, measured by the number of people who support it.

Consider that some kinds of addictive drug use, while superficially "victimless" does tend to have societal costs.

Again, I'm not saying I agree or disagree, just pointing out that some of these issues are not nearly as cut and dry as you think they are.

So you support the prohibition of alcohol and cigarettes.

There are no societal costs that aren't the direct result of additional tyranny. I am not concerned with society. I have no responsibility to my neighbor beyond what my own moral standard demands of me. And no law you pass changes that. It can only compel me to take action that is against my best interest.

These issues are very black and white. The issue isn't specificity. It's the level of intrusion my fellow citizen thinks he has a right to take to control the way I live my life. You have no concept of freedom, only permission to live.

 

[T.Lex]

I am in favor of opening up the civil legal contract of spousal privilege to anybody who wishes to participate. I'll even go so far as to say that I would have no problem with multiple parties to the contract. Marriage, on the other hand, is not what the state governs. And I have no authority to determine whether or not "gay" marriage is acceptable. It's above my pay grade, if you will.

See - we already agree on something! That wasn't too painful, was it?

What is this? Junior high? I know enough to know that you are a statist. Or dishonest. You can't make the posts you make without being one or the other.

It must be junior high the way you're jumping to conclusions about me.

I think you are confusing what is supposed to happen with reality because the courts are as complicit in the expansion of tyranny as Congress and the Executive.

And I think this is a matter of perspective. I've seen the process at almost every stage and seen it work to suppress true tyranny FAR more than promote it.

And here's why I'm not a statist: gov't is a necessity, but in the US, the power is held by the people. I'm a populist at heart.

Which is the statist's way of saying that some tyranny is okay because I will ultimately benefit. What rights are you willing to have taken from you today?

What rights are you or they trying to take away today? Society ultimately benefits from good gov't and suffers from bad gov't.

And when the majority opposed firearms, you'll hop on the bandwagon and support a complete prohibition. When the majority is religious, you'll stand back and let them impose their theocracy, no matter how much it clashes with the Constitution?

One bridge at a time (no, not the hypothetical one). The courts have, overall, done a good job on that, although on the religion thing it has probably swung too far toward imposing secularism for my taste.

And forget the bridge thing, I have a different tact. Where do you stand on speed limits?

In essence, you believe that majority rule is sufficient to govern people regardless of the restrictions or infringement it puts on their natural liberties. So long as the majority approves of it, it's good to go. There's no higher standard of liberty that you will use to measure the law other than its level of acceptability, measured by the number of people who support it.

Jumping to conclusions is good exercise, eh?

So you support the prohibition of alcohol and cigarettes.

I think we have a good balance now, as far as I know. Drink moderately, don't smoke.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

You are equating reasonable with right. It doesn't really work like that. (BTW, sometimes it is ok to bleed for health reasons.)

Theadoric of York would heartily agree.

 

[rambone]

Update

To no one's surprise, the miscreant thugs at the prosecutor's office are still letting this hang over the family. The government won't be satisfied until their lives are ruined. This family will just be the latest of millions of Americans to suffer needlessly under our twisted justice system.


Hearing reset for teen facing life sentence over pot brownies - MyFoxAustin.com

"All my personal freedoms were taken away from me and whether that was their intent or not, it happened," said Jacob Lavoro. "Needless to say, it's made me really depressed."

"Can you imagine hugging your son goodbye and for him to serve a life sentence. Five years, two years, a year for marijuana? C'mon, it's ridiculous. I'm getting angry. I'm getting angry at Williamson County. They've got to stop this. Stop being so political with it," said Joe Lavoro, Jacob's father.

 

[mrjarrell]

If he were my son, I'd take no chances. I'd have him leave the country for somewhere else that would be safer. I do not trust these grand juries, judges and prosecutors to ever do the right thing. They're corrupt and need to be purged from the top to the bottom.

 

[Bunnykid68]

If he were my son, I'd take no chances. I'd have him leave the country for somewhere else that would be safer. I do not trust these grand juries, judges and prosecutors to ever do the right thing. They're corrupt and need to be purged from the top to the bottom.

Would you be able to even get your kid out of the country though?

 

[mrjarrell]

Would you be able to even get your kid out of the country though?

Shouldn't be too hard, if he's already had a passport. They don't usually flag you for charges like these if they're out on bail. Worst case....it's Texas. Head south with a fistful of cash and jump the river. Then keep heading south till you reach an airport or dock. Where there's a will, there's a way.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

To no one's surprise, the miscreant thugs at the prosecutor's office are still letting this hang over the family. The government won't be satisfied until their lives are ruined.

Ummm, he hasn't even been indicted yet. Let's see what a grand jury does with it.

"Miscreant thugs at the prosecutor's office", love it!

 

[rambone]

Ummm, he hasn't even been indicted yet. Let's see what a grand jury does with it.

"Miscreant thugs at the prosecutor's office", love it!

It seems to me that prosecutors have a responsibility to drop absurd charges at the first possible opportunity. Spare the targets from unnecessary stress, humiliation, legal fees, etc. Spare the taxpayers from funding a witch hunt. That's a prosecutor's role in checks and balances.

That's why I don't find it admirable to wait for the grand jury to do anything with it. The charge is atrocious and shouldn't be given another moment's consideration.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

It seems to me that prosecutors have a responsibility to drop absurd charges at the first possible opportunity. Spare the targets from unnecessary stress, humiliation, legal fees, etc. Spare the taxpayers from funding a witch hunt. That's a prosecutor's role in checks and balances.

You are dead on.

Comment on Rule 3.8 | The Center for Professional Responsibility

That's why I don't find it admirable to wait for the grand jury to do anything with it. The charge is atrocious and shouldn't be given another moment's consideration.

Perhaps this case will be the spark to reform the statute in Austin.