reasonable suspicion

[swayside]

if a music artist writes a song about about how much drugs he did over the weekend, should law enforcement be allowed to run a drug test on him?

i think so.

[Ted-Easton]

Definitely. If you or I were overheard by a policeman saying "I smoked SOOOO much pot an hour ago, YO". WE'd be hauled off to the station.
These people say it, and it's heard hundreds of times by millions of people, and nothing happens.

[NoNameProphet]

At 3/22/03 02:31 PM, swayside wrote: if a music artist writes a song about about how much drugs he did over the weekend, should law enforcement be allowed to run a drug test on him?

i think so.

Uuhh, no they shouldn't because um........ AHHH! *goes into hiding*

SOME QUOTES

'i think drugs have done some goods things for us, i really do. if you dont believe go home and burn all your albums, cd's, records, tapes videos and burn em, because you know what, those artists who inhanced your lives, have been reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllll fucken high on drugs'

"Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration; that we are all conscious of ourselves subjectively. Life is only a dream and we're just imaginations of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather."

[NoNameProphet]

Ooops. Pardon typo/grammatical probs.. I just quickly pasted couple o' my fav quotes there. Lol.

[swayside]

At 3/22/03 03:04 PM, NoNameProphet wrote:

'i think drugs have done some goods things for us, i really do. if you dont believe go home and burn all your albums, cd's, records, tapes videos and burn em, because you know what, those artists who inhanced your lives, have been reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllll fucken high on drugs'

and you point is...

i'm sorry, but just because someone did something good while on drugs, doesn't mean drugs are good.

[NoNameProphet]

At 3/22/03 03:26 PM, swayside wrote:
and you point is...

i'm sorry, but just because someone did something good while on drugs, doesn't mean drugs are good.

... Well, my post was partly as a joke you know. I never backed up any claim that goes against what you said because I just don't have anything to say, someone just might have enjoyed those quotes that's all. Lol.

[NoNameProphet]

I cannot give you a legal reason as to why they shouldn't search them basically.

[swayside]

At 3/22/03 03:39 PM, NoNameProphet wrote: I cannot give you a legal reason as to why they shouldn't search them basically.

ok. sorry for taking you seriously.

[RoboTripper]

At 3/22/03 02:31 PM, swayside wrote: if a music artist writes a song about about how much drugs he did over the weekend, should law enforcement be allowed to run a drug test on him?

i think so.

I think that would stifle the artists creativity and right to expression. Artists often talk about things they don't necessarily mean - who's to say whether they're serious or just acting hard (I assume you're talking about rappers here). And even if they are tested and it comes out positive, what happens to them? You can't fire them because they are pretty much self-employed - and their label obviously doesn't care because they put out the lyrics. Arresting them would be a waste of taxpayer money, especially considering how difficult it would be to prosecute rich people for having some molecules of THC or whatever in their system.

I'm against drug tests in general because they are an invasion of privacy - only in certain reasonable instances like if the person is involved in public transportation should they be conducted. Otherwise it's just the government trying to control what you do in private.

[swayside]

At 3/22/03 03:44 PM, DenkSmoker wrote:

Artists often talk about things they don't necessarily mean - who's to say whether they're serious or just acting hard

a drug test.

(I assume you're talking about rappers here).

not necessarily. it was just hypothetical.

And even if they are tested and it comes out positive, what happens to them? You can't fire them because they are pretty much self-employed - and their label obviously doesn't care because they put out the lyrics. Arresting them would be a waste of taxpayer money, especially considering how difficult it would be to prosecute rich people for having some molecules of THC or whatever in their system.

put them in jail like you would any other offender. also raise the penalty.

I'm against drug tests in general because they are an invasion of privacy

no they're not.

Otherwise it's just the government trying to control what you do in private.

so it's ok to murder someone as long as it's in private?

[NEMESiSZ]

It's typically not illegal to do drugs, it's just illegal to sell them or possess them.

[RoboTripper]

At 3/22/03 04:31 PM, swayside wrote:

At 3/22/03 03:44 PM, DenkSmoker wrote:

Artists often talk about things they don't necessarily mean - who's to say whether they're serious or just acting hard

a drug test.

But I don't like that. Because I want to hear what the artist has to say - not what the government wants me to hear. If the artists felt threatened they would be effectively censored. And why waste time and money testing them? They're making music, not flying an airplane.

And even if they are tested and it comes out positive, what happens to them? You can't fire them because they are pretty much self-employed - and their label obviously doesn't care because they put out the lyrics. Arresting them would be a waste of taxpayer money, especially considering how difficult it would be to prosecute rich people for having some molecules of THC or whatever in their system.

put them in jail like you would any other offender. also raise the penalty.

Are people usually locked up for failing a drug test? I think the penalty is usually loss of employment or being stripped of accomplishments. These artists wouldn't go to jail because they have money to post bail and afford good lawyers. Those affected by stiffer penalties are poor people who can't afford representation or needed treatment.

People who have to take drug tests usually are contractually obligated to do so hinged on their employment. How would you drug test the artists? Arrest and take them into custody just for the sole purpose of making them piss in a cup?

I'm against drug tests in general because they are an invasion of privacy

no they're not.

I feel that they are. I am being searched without any evidence or reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing.

Otherwise it's just the government trying to control what you do in private.

so it's ok to murder someone as long as it's in private?

That wouldn't really be in private, because the person being murdered would be there. But I should've been more specific: in private when your actions are not adversely effecting others.

[bumcheekcity]

not really, cos with most rap artists they have their songs written for them

[MuscleHed]

It would hurt the police more then anything. Most drugs, not all, mind you, but most will stay in your system for less then a week. What is the Artist didn’t smoke for a while, and they Cops take him in for drug testing? They find nothing, he sues, and because he is famous, he will win, embarrassing the Police. On top of that, chances will be he will be black, and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton will fly down and use their pressure to hurt the PD that did it even more. Or they could have drugs in their system, and it will not doubt be a urine test, and they can get a friend to piss in the cup for them, and they get off scotch free, and the Cops still get sued

It is a good idea, but no, to way, it is not worth the trouble or risk. It would never work. Thin about it, these people get away with stealing, murdering, and all kinds of things like this, in front of eye witnesses, and still get off. What makes you think that would be any different?

[swayside]

all you people are saying that it wouldn't work because of our unfair system. i'm saying change the system to make it fair. make the penalty for the same crime the same for everyone.

[MuscleHed]

Right... and please, oh wise one, tell us just how to do that!

Listen, we all would love to change the system so it could be equal for everyone, but WE CAN’T! It is run by humans, and humans are imperfect. So, go a head, tell us how you, a 17 year old student, a child, will do something man have been trying to do for millions of year. Please, tell us how to make the system fair and balance for everyone.

No, I’m not joking, please, tell us your ideas, tell us how to get the human race so evolved that we can far and balanced system. If you could do that, we wouldn’t even need a system!

*sigh* asshole...

[swayside]

the human quality is not a good excuse to shirk the systems imperfections.

first off, i don't think bail is a good idea. paying money isn't as bad as sitting in jail.

second, stop being lenient on public figures! time after time, they get "twelve step programs" and crap like that while people at my own school get jailed, expelled, and other stuff for equal or lesser offenses.

also, highten penalties. trying to incorporate society's flaws into its morality isn't a good idea (example: making marijuana legal).

by the way, for my age, i am one of the most informed and political people i know of. don't judge my points because your "clever" enough to find out how old i am. judge them by their validity, moron.

[TheShrike]

I would just like to say that it is not illegal to piss green (fail the drug test).

So what, then would be the point of the drug test? And if the cops were allowed to test everyone who said maybe they did something, what then, would be the point of sarcasm?

Now, walking into an airport and saying in a sarcastic voice that you have a bomb(boxcutter) is just plain stupid, but should you really get a drug test for saying you smoke/shoot/snort/etc? What's the point? Ok, you failed the test. If you eat a sandwhich on a poppyseed bun, you'll test positive for ... morphine? heroin? Someone help me here, I forget...

Anyway, the point that I'm trying to make is...

What's the point?

You cannot be arrested for failing a drug test. You might lose your job because of one, but you aren't gonna be arrested for it. And from what I understand, it isn't illegal to be high, either (barring public intoxication/dui laws)... just illegal to posses the means to make yourself so.

[NEMESiSZ]

Who cares, seriously?

[swayside]

At 3/22/03 09:01 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Who cares, seriously?

obviously i do.

[MuscleHed]

At 3/22/03 08:53 PM, swayside wrote: the human quality is not a good excuse to shirk the systems imperfections.

Yes, it is. Otherwise, Mongoloid children a gifted children would be expected to do that same work. We aren’t computers, we can’t be programmed! Your system is made to less human imperfection! Why do you think they have checks-and-balances for? Our whole system was made to work with the Human imperfections!

first off, i don't think bail is a good idea. paying money isn't as bad as sitting in jail.

Right, so everyone has to stay in prison for the duration of a trial? What if the wrong person is sent to person. What is the person who is put in prison has to go to work or get fired? Like everything else you keep saying, this is a good idea, but not plausible.

second, stop being lenient on public figures! time after time, they get "twelve step programs" and crap like that while people at my own school get jailed, expelled, and other stuff for equal or lesser offenses.

This is what we have been talking about, we can’t! Human imperfection, remember?

also, highten penalties. trying to incorporate society's flaws into its morality isn't a good idea (example: making marijuana legal).

Yes, I agree, that would be good. If it where possible. People can be killed from some crimes, how much heighten do you want? Prison for speeding? 10-20 for J-walking? We do incoprate our flaws into our system, see above!

by the way, for my age, i am one of the most informed and political people i know of. don't judge my points because your "clever" enough to find out how old i am. judge them by their validity, moron.

Yeah, so age has nothing to do with the fact you don’t know more then the millions of Scientists, leaders, philosophers, and politician who have tried to do what your taking about! Yes, of course you are the most unformatted person you know, you are probably one of the most informed on the board. But very few people on the board are your age, and most of the people you know around our age as well. You couldn’t last one round with a informed adult. Do you pay taxes? Do you vote? You have book knowledge, yes, but that is not all, otherwise their would be 15 year olds with their own political talk shows! I judge your points on because I’m “clever” because you are clearly book smart but lacking in the turn knowledge it would take to survive in the real world. Things do work to your ideological views! The world is full of theories that work like clockwork on paper, but fall apart in real life. Yes, you are smart guy, but you have much to learn about life.

[swayside]

At 3/22/03 09:39 PM, MuscleHed wrote:

At 3/22/03 08:53 PM, swayside wrote:

Your system is made to less human imperfection! Why do you think they have checks-and-balances for? Our whole system was made to work with the Human imperfections!

true, but shouldn't a system work towards ridding itself of imperfection? the fact that it's there and will probably always be there is no excuse to give up.

This is what we have been talking about, we can’t! Human imperfection, remember?

but that's not a good excuse to shirk it off.

Yes, I agree, that would be good. If it where possible. People can be killed from some crimes, how much heighten do you want? Prison for speeding? 10-20 for J-walking? We do incoprate our flaws into our system, see above!

the punishment should fit the crime. be reasonable. stop doing your best to make my points look bad.

Yeah, so age has nothing to do with the fact you don’t know more then the millions of Scientists, leaders, philosophers, and politician who have tried to do what your taking about!

exactly. as well as your's has nothing to do with the "imperfections" you're trying to shirk.

But very few people on the board are your age, and most of the people you know around our age as well.

i know of at least one. i quite rarely check profiles.

You couldn’t last one round with a informed adult.

informed on what? this is society, not current events. informed is a passive verb implying that if a person is informed, someone else informed them. make your own decisions in societal issues.

Do you pay taxes? Do you vote?

no. no. but that all has to do with regulation. i don't because i'm not yet old enough. that's not my fault and you shouldn't disreguard me because of it.

You have book knowledge, yes, but that is not all, otherwise their would be 15 year olds with their own political talk shows!

while i would like to see that, it would get old rather quickly. i'm not one of those people who says "kids can do anyting".

also, it's not my book knowledge that i focus on. i've always centered on policy more than current events.

Yes, you are smart guy, but you have much to learn about life.

while i thank you for such a compliment in the first half of that sentence, i have to scoff the second. do you think i'll have some kind of revalation when i turn 18, pay taxes, and vote? i'll wake up on my 18 and say, "wait a minute..."? i don't.

[NJDeadzone]

At 3/22/03 02:31 PM, swayside wrote: if a music artist writes a song about about how much drugs he did over the weekend, should law enforcement be allowed to run a drug test on him?

i think so.

i suppose so if it was a big deal...the lyrics arouse suspisicions and that's what drug tests are, as long as one can create the warrant

[swayside]

At 3/22/03 10:33 PM, NJDeadzone wrote:

i suppose so if it was a big deal...the lyrics arouse suspisicions and that's what drug tests are, as long as one can create the warrant

exactly. if i said through a megaphone, "i do drugs", wouldn't any drug test because of it be reasonable suspicion? music artist (sorry for focusing on them so much) reach more people than a megaphone.

[Jimsween]

There's no law that says you cant do drugs it only says you cant posses drugs, so reasonable suspiscion wouldnt apply because if you did the drugs you would no longer posses them. Plus DA's dont usually get warrants unless its a serious crime, its just too much work to waste a judges time just to get a guy probation and community service.

[swayside]

At 3/22/03 11:33 PM, jimsween wrote: There's no law that says you cant do drugs it only says you cant posses drugs, so reasonable suspiscion wouldnt apply because if you did the drugs you would no longer posses them.

change that.

Plus DA's dont usually get warrants unless its a serious crime, its just too much work to waste a judges time just to get a guy probation and community service.

too bad.

[Jimsween]

While your at it make it illegal to talk and breath!

FASCISM FOR ALL!!!

[swayside]

At 3/23/03 12:12 AM, jimsween wrote: While your at it make it illegal to talk and breath!

FASCISM FOR ALL!!!

i'd appreciate your not posting again.

[NJDeadzone]

jim i'd hate to say it but that was pretty tasteless

[MuscleHed]

I never tried to make your point look bad. You didn’t phrase it properly, and I called it like I saw it. If that made your point look bad, how is that my problem. Maybe… um, your point was bad to start with? Did that ever once occur to you? You are young still, and naive. It is not a bad thing, and by no means an insult. I’m sorry if you take it as such, but it isn’t. And what is your obsession with me looking at your profile about? You keep bringing it up like to is such a big deal? So I like to know who I am debating with, big fucking whooped do!

Anyways, Jim, what was that about?