Archduke Russell John wrote:So I think I am in good position to ask for a retraction from Purple.

LOL. I'll go this far: surveys such as I referenced work by taking a representative sample of people and then extrapolating from the sample to the population at large. Scientific methods are used to ensure the sample is truly representative, and large enough to yield results within a small margin of probable error. In the case of the Gallup poll they asked 1,005 people specifically about marijuana legalization. In your capacity as Assistant District Director to a State Senator you also collected info from a sample of people. Over a thousand - specifically regarding legalization? You tell me. A scientifically-selected sample? Surely not. Never-the-less, in its way, you conducted a survey. Your results, as you report them, differ significantly from Gallup's. Perhaps this is due to your sample coming (mostly?) from one district within Pennsylvania, whereas Gallup data at best can be isolated to the "Northeast". It's certainly possible that your sample, and the population from which it was drawn, truly holds a very different opinion about legalization than Gallup's sample and its population. That still doesn't place Ray Jay "squarely in the middle of Northeast Republicans". It's also possible that the Gallup survey is simply wrong, and that your's is simply right when it comes to Northeast Republicans in general. Possible, but not terribly likely.

Despite two large surveys showing that Republicans are roughly only 28% in favor of legalization, you insist on asserting that your informal data-gathering has yielded a more reliable result. You do realize this, right?

As for your retraction: I indeed assumed you were an average person, not an exceptional one in an exceptionally influential circle that gave you access to an exceptional wealth of data regarding public opinion far in excess of what a lowly soul like I could gather from reading the newspaper. I apologize and retract any statements I made based on that incorrect assumption.

There's also survey bias in that ARJ's own view on the subject matter influence both the responses and how he interprets the responses. It's too bad, because I wish ARJ was right and that there were more Republicans who support my socially liberal views and would be happy to include me in their Party. I have to satisfy myself with the label Independent in Political Party as well as in personality.

Purple wrote:LOL. I'll go this far: surveys such as I referenced work by taking a representative sample of people and then extrapolating from the sample to the population at large. Scientific methods are used to ensure the sample is truly representative, and large enough to yield results within a small margin of probable error.

Uhm, well I was specifically responding to your apparent dismisall of my anectdotal evidence as not being real. Not commenting on the validity or lack of validity of the polls you produced. Yet I would also point that you did not produce a poll that specifically canceled out my contention, i.e. that Northeastern Republicans are more in line with legalization.

["quote="Purple"]Despite two large surveys showing that Republicans are roughly only 28% in favor of legalization, you insist on asserting that your informal data-gathering has yielded a more reliable result. You do realize this, right?[/quote] Show me were I said this please? As a matter of fact, I think I said the exact opposite, i.e. this is what my personal experience shows but I can't prove it.

Purple wrote:As for your retraction: I indeed assumed you were an average person, not an exceptional one in an exceptionally influential circle that gave you access to an exceptional wealth of data regarding public opinion far in excess of what a lowly soul like I could gather from reading the newspaper. I apologize and retract any statements I made based on that incorrect assumption.

Wow, I would say thank you if it wasn't done in such and obnoxious and prickish style that is coming to represent all of your posts.

Ray Jay wrote:There's also survey bias in that ARJ's own view on the subject matter influence both the responses and how he interprets the responses. It's too bad, because I wish ARJ was right and that there were more Republicans who support my socially liberal views and would be happy to include me in their Party. I have to satisfy myself with the label Independent in Political Party as well as in personality.

I am fine with a socially liberal society as long as the punishments for violations and hurting others would be fine with me.

Examples:
Somebody smoked marijuana and drives a vehicle, killing a family. That person is executed, not for the pot, but for the murder.
Somebody has a weapon and takes it into a theater, killing 12. That person is executed, not for having a weapon, but for the murder.

I have room for plenty of people like you RJ, in my tent!

bbauska wrote:Somebody smoked marijuana and drives a vehicle, killing a family. That person is executed, not for the pot, but for the murder.

That is not murder. It's usually vehicular manslaughter.

Murder needs to have been intended for it to be murder. A drunkard (or someone under the influence of another drug) does not intend to kill. They do so through negligence and their impairment.

Your other example is of someone who did murder. In two regards there is intent - at the point of shooting people, it was a direct action against the victims; beforehand it was planned out. Assuming the guy is sane, that is Murder in the first degree.

Without the pre-meditation, but with deliberate action, it would usually be second degree murder. With neither premeditation nor proximate intent, a killing is not murder. Even if you do support the death penalty, I would hope you'd have some regard for the difference between a manslaughter and a capital crime.

IMO, the intentional driving of a vehicle (it is not like the person tripped and fell in behind the steering wheel!) while drunk/impaired is different than sliding on the ice and running into a family in the crosswalk.

I understand what the differences in the laws are. I am speaking to RJ's desire of social freedoms. I am willing to stipulate to that, but with social responsibilities.

bbauska wrote:IMO, the intentional driving of a vehicle (it is not like the person tripped and fell in behind the steering wheel!) while drunk/impaired is different than sliding on the ice and running into a family in the crosswalk.

True, but sliding on the ice would not be manslaughter, if it was accidental. If, for example, the driver was driving too fast on the ice, or had not kept the vehical in a roadworthy condition, that would move toward manslaughter or negligent homicide, But killing in an accident is an accident, and is not prosecuted.

I understand what the differences in the laws are.

So why do you compare premeditated mass-murder to manslaughter? They are different, and the penalty for the latter is not death. And why do you compare manslaughter to accidents? The latter isn't even a crime.

I am speaking to RJ's desire of social freedoms. I am willing to stipulate to that, but with social responsibilities.

Personally, I don't disagree with your basic premise that legalising drugs but treating it as we do other legal intoxicants, like alcohol, is fine. It's not a massive reach to have laws on drug driving that are equivalent to drunk driving (I believe many jurisdictions already do, the main question is applying standard tests and setting limits).

Quite why you needed to allude to the Denver shootings to make that point I don't know.

I used extreme cases to make a point that it should be dealt with harshly.

As the the driving example... If you intentionally drive and are impaired, that should be murder with a deadly weapon. Whether that weapon is a gun, crossbow or vehicle matters little to the victim, does it?

bbauska wrote:I used extreme cases to make a point that it should be dealt with harshly.

Alternatively, it's a bit of needless hyperbole.

As the the driving example... If you intentionally drive and are impaired, that should be murder with a deadly weapon. Whether that weapon is a gun, crossbow or vehicle matters little to the victim, does it?

A murder victim is as dead as an accident victim is as dead as someone who catches a nasty bug. Nothing more matters to them.

However, what matters in law is the difference between lawful death (accidents where no negligence is involved, natural causes etc) and unlawful killing. And then the difference between killing with intent (murder), and without (manslaughter).

And, whether you like it or not, state of mind matters. Drink and drugs are dangerous precisely because they affect the brain and in particular, perceptions and the decision-making process. Which, like it or not, means that it is hard (if not impossible) to prove deliberate intent.

The 'impairment' is the same one that makes the 'intentionally driving' problematic. It is totally different from soberly pointing a loaded weapon at a person and shooting it.

Believe me, I understand the difference state of mind makes. I am learning a lot more than I ever wanted to. If mental issues are there because of no causal factors intentionally self-inflicted it would be as you have said.

Are you saying that a person who gets behind the wheel while impaired has not brought this upon themselves? True enough the drugs and alcohol affect the brain. The person makes the decision to drink/smoke etc, and that is where the liability is.

Hmm, if you take that last sentence to it's logical conclusion, you'd be suggesting that it would make sense to make drinking illegal (and keep drugs illegal).

I agree that there is definitely liability in drunk/drug driving, especially if it causes an accident which injures or kills others. Manslaughter is no minor crime, and drunk/drug driving would aggravate it. So yes, they would have 'brought this upon themselves'.

But that does not mean that it is intentional. We set the definition of murder as intentional unlawful killing. If you want to get that definition widened to include other things, go ahead and lobby for it. But that won't happen simply by you declaring it so.

bbauska wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:There's also survey bias in that ARJ's own view on the subject matter influence both the responses and how he interprets the responses. It's too bad, because I wish ARJ was right and that there were more Republicans who support my socially liberal views and would be happy to include me in their Party. I have to satisfy myself with the label Independent in Political Party as well as in personality.

I am fine with a socially liberal society as long as the punishments for violations and hurting others would be fine with me.

Examples:
Somebody smoked marijuana and drives a vehicle, killing a family. That person is executed, not for the pot, but for the murder.
Somebody has a weapon and takes it into a theater, killing 12. That person is executed, not for having a weapon, but for the murder.

I have room for plenty of people like you RJ, in my tent!

Thanks for the tent invite. If I bring a jay to the tent, perhaps you can leave your gun at home? Although if your tent is in a rough area (people or animal), you bring your gun, and I'll leave the jay at home.

I promise not to shoot anyone, RJ.

bbauska wrote:I promise not to shoot anyone, RJ.

I promise not to drive under the influence.

Archduke Russell John wrote:...I was specifically responding to your apparent dismisall of my anectdotal evidence as not being real.

I see. Let me explain. No one but you will be interested in this so I suggest they ignore this boring and pointless explanation of what I meant a page back in an offhand remark.

You had said that "most" Republicans believed X based on "anecdotal" evidence. I was trying to explain that for anecdotal evidence to prove anything about most Republicans you'd have had to have dealt anecdotally with most, not with a small sample from which you had extrapolated to most. I never questioned the reality of the anecdotes you did in fact have - only the difference between the small sample and the million-plus. You did not interview a million people.

EDIT: Wait. I just figured this out. You think I have accused you of lying about having spoken to six or six hundred people about legalization. Why would I do that? It's so foreign to my thinking it didn't even register until the fifth reconsideration of the matter that that's what was bothering you.