Ah, fish sticks.

I know paleo/zone is big around here, but any general recommendations for a pre-workout meal? Post-workout meal?

Great info Tucker!

Just got into the Zone/Paleo thing myself. I highly reccomend giving it a try. Dr. Spears talks about what and when to eat for exercising. Between Zone, crossfit, and fish oil, no doubt about it, I am currently in the best shape of my life, to include my 5 years as a paratrooper. Good read if you are interested....

OK hand position while learning, but if you want to do Oly lifts, you're going to have to get comfortable with all 4 fingers under the bar and closed.

Interesting article.

I live in Australia and the stats are the same

- every major violent crime is trending downwards
- public perception about proliferation of violent crime trends upwards.

Crime, along with immigration are incredibly emotive issues on which normally rational people regularly have less rational perspectives.

Hence, they are easy subjects for politicians to take hard & unilateral positions on that disincentivise useful debate. And incredibly risky to do the opposite.

The media is at least partly responsible for this, from talk radio to more respectable journalism to the proliferation of COPS type shows to the plethora of CSI/Without a Trace shows. We are surrounded by images and dramatisations of violent crime every day.

An opposite point of course is that even a small amount of violent crime is still repellent and should be stamped out. As a law abiding citizen, I'm happy for violent offenders to rot in prison and for more draconian punishments for repeat offences.

#5 Ed
You are dead wrong pal. Bottom line. As you get the bar on to your shoulders and chest, you don't need to grip the bar with all four fingers. I want to know where you are getting this technique from when all they talk about is a loose grip and letting the bar rest on the shoulders and chest. Dead wrong.
Rest day much needed, legs are fried

Forget rest.. I'm feeling a fight gone bad!
24" box jumps
95 lb hang cleans
Med ball push-ups
Chin ups
Sprint
3..2..1.....

Ayn Rand has been prescient on so many issues it is mind boggling.
For more reading on how we are all felons and on how easy it is to break the law
read

http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson255.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson-arch.html

The overarching issue is that from the day that any power is given to any living person that person (natural or artificial *) will grab for more power. That person will continue to acquire more power until that person becomes a tyrant and must be removed from power. Here in the U.S. the government will eventually need to be replaced, as every government eventually does. Rome was replaced, the sun used to never set on the English empire, and Alexander the Great eventually was forced to go home.

All empires end, and give rise to new empires that are roughly the same as how the recently deceased empire started. Will the Anglosphere crumble in my lifetime, probably not. But just to be on the safe side I speak Spanish and am working on Chinese.

*yes I am saying that the government is an artificial person the same way that a corporation is considered an artificial person.

I LOVE RAINIER CROSSFIT!!!

"OK hand position while learning, but if you want to do Oly lifts, you're going to have to get comfortable with all 4 fingers under the bar and closed."

Comment #5 - Posted by: Ed at October 21, 2009 6:08 PM

See comment #7 by Kade. Sorry Ed.

Since we're talking about crime:

When I left the Army and moved back to New York I discovered that due to the draconian gun laws--I was a felon. Yep, I had brought my legally purchased handguns back into the state of my birth not realizing that I had to have a pistol permit to own a handgun in NY--not carry--own. Luckily, I was able to resolve this problem. However, if it hadn't been for my military service and some understanding members of the local law enforcement community--I would have been headed upstate for a few years for felony position of handgun(s) w/out a permit, unregistered firearms and 'trafficking' across state lines.

Chris, I didnt know you were in the Army! I was too. Cool...I knew there was something special about you ;)

#11
It's not that they can't file any charges against them, it's that they won't. This administration is headed by as big a liar and hypocrite as any other. Maybe more. "Change we can belive in". What a joke!

#10 Mike,

do ya think? Maybe true for Robert Mugabe, Idi Amin and Dick Cheney but that's a pretty cynical blanket statement to throw out without much to back it up.

are you just referring to political power or all kinds of organisational, corporate & situational power?

Hey Herm (#12) We love them too! :P

#16 D.C. has strict gun laws and their crime rate is not low. I doubt criminals obey laws, especially gun laws. Criminals and Laws are an oxymoron.

I don't get it.
What kind of muscles does this workout target?

sick photo

you serious #5?

I am so glad that it has become "trendy" to read Ayn Rand's works. Makes me feel like I was ahead of the game when I first picked up one of her books 10 years ago!

I would have been great if all the people that have recently discovered her writings and are now distrusting government and passionately defending individual rights had been around back during the Bush Administration. Rand would have been appalled at the overreaching of the Patriot Act. And I hope everyone is still fighting for individual rights when the Dems--and their version of collectivism--leave the White House and the Republicans step in with their own version of collectivism...

Laurie- You would!!!
:-)
I can't wait to get up there again soon!
Not sure if you remember me, didn't get a chance to visit at the NW qual 'cause we were all so busy but I'm the one that kept hounding you for biz tips at the L1 way back in February.
Anyway- We'll be officially afilliated in a few short weeks!!! Thanks for all you and Kurtis do!!!

Rarely comment about a workout, much less the rest day verbal arena, but all the Ayn Rand stuff got me fired up. Despite being one of her lesser known works, Anthem changed my life. The very principals of CrossFit are based on the virtue of human achievement that she so valiantly rallied for in her work. When people ask whether I am Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, I simply reply... Objectivist. #9 & 21 - love the trendy comment - just hoped it wouldn't ever ring so true. A phenomenal article appeared in the WSJ a few months back...

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB123146363567166677-lMyQjAxMDI5MzExMDQxNjAzWj.html

RE:Comment 11 and 7....

Sorry guys, watch the top OLY lifters in the world perform a clean. No single fingertip racks. They actually don't even let their HOOK grip go when they rack. Its about flexibility and grip position.

Like Ed said in comment 5...if you are going to get serious about OLY lifts, you should really try to work flexibility, widen your grip and rack with a full grip.

wow.... can DC's comment about New York's strict gun laws being a reason why violent crime has fallen in that state really have been 'edited out' of these comments?

I may not agree with that comment but it certainly is a valid post for a rest day.

Mike your looking good. Nice to see you made it on the BIG Site, so quit complaining.

RAINIER CROSSFIT is freaking amazing!

I find this remark to be wildly off, not to mention unsubstantiated:

"In his new book, the Boston-based civil liberties advocate and occasional Reason contributor Harvey Silverglate estimates that in 2009, the average American commits about three federal felonies per day."

But then, I think many of these Rest Day articles to be wildly off. I do Crossfit and ignore the right-wing politics just like I do yoga and ignore the phony goofball spiritualism. It's just exercise.

Does that pic also refer to the catching position of a clean?

anyone know how many kb cleans they did on the prowler workout?

This article is what I was touching on when I asked a question about "intent" on the previous Rest Day discussion about jury nullification. Apolloswabbie once said that as a police officer all he had to do was trail someone long enough and eventually they would unwittingly, and without intent to do so, break some law or another.

So I toss up this balloon once again: where does intent figure in this modern era of laws?

I rarely comment on the articles but this one seems to speak to so many issues facing America. Decreasing freedom, prison industrial complex, and the sensationalism presented in media. Where you have a population that is being fed a steady diet of fear through 24 hour news networks, it is easy to see how a population begins to increasingly relinquish their freedom for protection. It is not a hard leap for politicians to seize this for votes. Add on to this the fact that prisons are now run by private industry whose main objective is to maximize their bottom line (never mind rehabilitation programs and educational systems designed to bring these people back into the folds of society) we begin to see something ugly in the making.

# 30 bingo-

With all due respect, criminal "intent" is simply not relevant with regard to the concept of jury nullification.

Intent is critically relevant to any discussion concernig criminal liability. There can be no crime without intent. Crime species include "specific intent crimes" which require the intent to do a specific unlawful act to reach an intended result and "general intent crimes" which outlaw the act itself and require only the intent to complete an (unlawful) act.

Mr. Balko's article is really a whiney indictment of an over-litigious society, and overly zealous legislators. We are not all felons...only those of us who have been found guilty, by trial or plea, to a crime defined by the legislature to carry punishment of one year or more in prison.

Big, bad "government" has not made us all into criminals: people who choose to break the law make themselves into criminals.

Balko apeaks of public perception; does anyone think that, just maybe, public perception is framed not by "Government," but by our liberal media,journalists and entertainment moguls?
Society is fascinated by crime. Movies, television shows, and news are dominated by themes of violent crime.

Hey Mr. Balko: if you think we are over-legilated, write your Congressman.

I remember when I was a kid growing up in Minnesota how they would often bust gay bathhouses, often catching fellow cops in the process. It was against the law to commit sodomy, and they enforced it.

Likewise, I get the strong sense that law enforcement had a lot more lattitude as far as swinging their batons back in the 60's and before.

Remember J. Edgar Hoover? He was spying on everyone. He just did it. The system was balanced in his favor.

Frankly, I think we needed something like the Patriot Act back in the 1950's, so we could have gotten at least some Court involvement in their espionage. They broke all sorts of laws, constantly.

I personally don't feel like this is a Police State, which is what he seems to be implying. I don't feel in constant danger of breaking some law or other. On the contrary: you can sue anybody and everybody, which makes law enforcement if anything a bit squeamish. We live in a sea of trial lawyers.

As I say often, the problem is simply where the balance of power lies. Congress can make a law, and impose it on all 50 States. That's not how it was supposed to work. They were supposed to protect the country and regulate the relations of the sundry States. It was "We the United States ARE. . ." until after the Civil War.

If Congress wants to ban, say, drug use, they should not be allowed that power. They regulate interstate commerce, but not INTRAstate commerce. If somebody grows something in Humboldt County, California, and sells it in San Diego, the Federal Government should have no say about that. Frankly, they should have no say about commerce between States with similar laws. Now, CALIFORNIA should be able to ban it, but not Washington.

This, to me, is the real, daily problem We pay Social Security taxes daily. We pay Medicare and Medicaid. We pay large Federal income taxes.

If you want an example of a real, obvious, and ineluctable violation of our liberty, that is it right there. It is daily, and real.

Moreover, States can't make laws on any controversial topic over which the Federal Government has usurpted authority. We have a Ten Commandments case here, and the damn ACLU has successfully lititgated to eliminate the freedom of one particular county to put displays in their courtroom that should be their own damn business.

This is, again, a prima facie, absolutely incontrovertible violation of the 1st Amendment, which says that the freedom to practice religion will not be abridged by the Federal Government.

Only long term propagandistic indoctrination, coupled with profound and ubiquitous failures in the teaching of critical thinking, permit any other conclusion.

Awwww!! too Rest or not to Rest that is the big question...not gun laws..Dang im still in the military going on 20yrs and still strong headed...Its funny I have this conversation probaly everyday with my gun enthusiasts about guns or none..I dont own any, just personal preference but im telling you they are finally getting me to think of owning some..
shout out to Chris(new) and Herm(old) and all soldiers then and NOW!!!

Before anybody jumps on me, let me simply say that banning any consensual sectual activity and enforcing it, is in my view awful. What was done then was not that different than what Saudi religious police can--if they choose--do now; although of course the penalties are potentially much worse, up to and including death.

But this was back in the 1970's. Hardly ancient history. As with crime, things have gotten much better since then.

FWIW, the ban on sodomy is still on the books in many places, but is primarily used to add another charge in heterosexual rape cases.

# 33 Barry Cooper-

Federal prosecutors do not prosecute drug "users" per se(common misperception), but drug traffickers; that is, those who possess with intent to distribute and do distribute illegal drugs.

Since coca plants are not indigenous to the United States, all cocaine is imported, and travels in interstate commerce, vesting the federal authorities with jurisdiction. This is also true of heroin, refined mostly from poppies cultivated in Afghanistan. Similarly, tons of Mexican marijuana are imported into the U.S. on a daily basis.

Most sovereign states in this country do not have the resources the feds do to battle large-scale, international drug conspiracies, and most state and local LEO's appreciate the cooperation and assistance of the feds, exemplified by numerous federal-state/local task forces.

#34 Barry Cooper, are you the slightly infamous, sheriff-turned-marijuana-advocate Barry, whose DVDs are for sake online? Not that I agree with you, or don't, I'm just curious.

#32 AUSA Mike,

I don't think Balko is being whiney at all. As he points out, the US leads the world in incarcerations, yet has decreasing crime and increasing positive social indicators. Most of the incarcerations are for non-crimes like buying and selling drugs or other victimless "crimes."

As previous commenters have pointed out, there are more crimes than we know exist. How is that whiney? Is it at all rational to have to first research hard to read statutes and case precedents before we intend to do something which obviously hurts no one and shouldn't be crimes in a free society? Like shipping a gun (private property) to my house (private property). Now bloggers' free speech is being regulated by the FTC. Where does it end?

Overall, the state needs to be stripped of some or most of its powers. Where on earth is it in our Constitution that they have been granted most of these powers?

Cheers!

Although this is slightly off topic, some of the posters have raised the issue about the media's impact on society so I'm going to run with it.

Let's talk about Balloon Boy. I first heard (without any visuals) that this kid may have gone up in this home made balloon only to find out later that they found the balloon and no boy. Ok, so everyone knows the rest of the story. The next morning, getting ready for my workout, GMA is on the TV in the locker room and of course they're talking about this "incredible story". Still, I have yet to see this balloon. I'm doing a warmup on the treadmill. 5 TV's. At least 3 different channels. Then I see the balloon. Holy #)($*&^%&@!!!!! From the instant I see the balloon, it is painfully obvious that there is no freakin' way there was ever a boy inside that thing! Anyone with a basic grasp of physics could figure that out. I got so pissed off at the way the media handled this thing that I had to stop. Not ONE person in the media could ever get off this "Incredible story" and objectively say hey, wait a minute. There couldn't have been a boy in there. The thing wouldn't get off the ground! Yet they weren't interested in objective reporting, they were into sensationalism. Heene became my hero because he gamed the media and he gamed the morons that thought this was real. Now instead of everyone stopping and saying, oh, aren't we the idiots for falling for this, they want to prosecute the guy for pointing out how stupid and gullible people are.

It doesn't matter if you're right, left, dead center, our media sucks. We have been spoon fed so much drivel and garbage over the years from a media that loves sensationalism, that as a society, our critical thinking capacity for "news" is in the toilet. Not only that but don't you know they LOVE....ABSOLUTELY LOVE!!! to create and expand and build up any schism between liberal and conservative thought. Forget about a balanced perspective. If they can bend a news article to create chaos, stress, or strife, you can bet your life, they will.

I'm not a fan of the current administration and certainly the last was not too hot either but until our media can deliver functional, factual, objective news to the masses, it's only going to get worse.

# 37 LucienNicholson-

Whineyness is a matter of opinion, I suppose; what is whine to one may be music to another.

However, I must take issue with your characterization of "non-crimes like....selling drugs or other victimles 'crimes'."

Drug distribution may not have corporeal victims like crimes of murder, rape, or robbery, but society as a whole is victmized by the illegal drug trade.

Most murders in Detroit, for example, are related to drug trafficking, as are many assaults, robberies, car-jackings, and rapes. Entire neighborhoods have been decimated, by the greedy who traffick in drugs.

Take care.

Rest day.....hmmmmmmm

# 37

The Preamble: ". . . insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare . . . "

The Commerce Clause: Congress has power "[t]o regulate Commerce . . . among the several States."

Etc., etc., etc.

While you may believe that state has too much power to police, it's not like these laws have been created out of thin air.

Some inherent part of this equation (more and more laws, more and more incarcerated) has to be examined with the idea of economic self-interest and how that feeds back into the legislative and executive branch creating more laws.

Government employees, whether they be representatives or federal/state regulators, have much less incentive to act then a citizen not working for the state. It's nearly impossible to not get re-elected and nearly impossible to get fired from a government job. So why would these people who are going to get paid no matter what expend effort to create more laws?

My proposition is that they are doing this to enrich others in the hope of one day being rewarded. Now what group stands the most to gain from an increasing body of laws and regulation: lawyers.

They are the perfect connection for a never-ending cycle of more laws/regulations, more criminality, more laws/regulations, ad infinitum.

I always enjoy being reminded that this is nothing new, check out Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" I.XVI for a terrific understanding of what role lawyers play in a democracy versus a tyranny. Then ask yourself which one it sounds like we're in now in America.

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/t/tocqueville/alexis/democracy/book1.html#book1.16 (wfs)

I was watching crossfit bids on YouTube lastnight... And my question is will I really be shredded and athletic by doing only crossfit with a good diet? Is that all these peole do or do they do additional work? My wife and I are going to start doing this! Thanks

Agree a little with Barry, agree a little with AUSA Mike...

One interesting thing to me was Balko's specific use of the phrase "Violent crime" in trying to "prove" his statistics, which most know are very debatable and never reliable...

So, I ask this... what consititues a "violent crime"? what consititues a "crime"...

I aruge that you must look deeper into this, at the way the federal and many states have re-worded their statues as to what defines a violent crime.. Many have made it so that what used to be classified as "violent crime" is not longer categorized as such, hence violent crime statistics have fallen. However, overall crime rates may have not...

Not going to get into wheter I agree with his stance on illegal immigrants as it relates to crime, but I found this:

"Roughly 17 percent of the prison population at the federal level are illegal aliens. That's a huge number since illegal aliens only account for about 3 percent of the total population... One in five in our prison population were illegal immigrants who had been convicted of a felony after entering the country illegally."

here: http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/27/114208.shtml

#13--Herm I've been called 'special' before but usually not in a positive light.

I had a question i was hopeing someone out there could help me with. i was doing TYLER on saturday and hurt my back with the SDHP. Bad form on round 4. it is not serious but i was told to stay away from the gym for 2 weeks. the question, how much work capacity am i going to lose? i havn't been injured before,and have been at cross fit for almost 4 months. i really want to get back at it.

#40 Adam:

No, they weren't regulated out of thin air. Other bad, unconstitutional laws were also brought forth with equal vigor and unjustness. "To regulate" meant to "keep regular" in the sense of insuring that trade was not impeded between the states via tariffs and other restrictions. Somehow, that doesn't apply any more. Now, it has been interpreted to mean that the federal government may do whatever it wants and claim that x economic good may have been a part of interstate trade. Wikard V. Filburn is the first modern example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn). See also the book "The Dirty Dozen," put out by the Institute for Justice. You may find a liberty-oriented mindset on the constitution interesting.

#38 AUSA Mike:

Drug related crime is a scare term on the part of prohibitionists. "Drug related crime" can most easily be termed alcohol related crime or oxygen related crime. I have yet to see any study positing that drugs cause crime. Why are there so many non-criminal drug users? I'm sure many violent offenders use drugs, but that may be a correlate of their criminal status, not a cause.

That's beside the point, though. Violent crimes are already illegal. The only reason the drug trade is illegal is because it has been declared illegal. The drug trade is so obviously similar to the US Prohibition era. Make a good illegal and you will obviously have black markets and the attendant violence.

We've had 30+ years of a drug war and the crime and amount of drugs doesn't cease, yet we have a larger and larger percentage of the population in prison because of it. Civil liberties and privacy have been attacked and for what? When something is a 30 year failure, it is time to re-think.

Besides that, where again was the power given to Congress to arbitrarily declare substances illegal? Find it for me in Article 1, Section 8. I'm still looking.

MikeB
"Roughly 17 percent of the prison population at the federal level are illegal aliens. That's a huge number since illegal aliens only account for about 3 percent of the total population... One in five in our prison population were illegal immigrants who had been convicted of a felony after entering the country illegally."

I'm not making a value judgment here--but the rates of incarceration and prison populations have been, for quite some time now, leaned heavily and disproportionately towards being male and minority. If the population of those convicted of crimes and subsequently incarcerated mirrored the population at large--then somewhere around 50% of those incarcerated would be women.

Rest day was much needed. May run a little bit though.

Tabata "something else" killed me. I did substitute dips for pull-ups for that because the pull-up bars were being used the entire time I was in there.

Did not attempt the Walking lunge/ sit-ups. My legs were too shot. Not used to this.

Excited to hit the ground running tomorrow.

Any suggestions for mid back back spasms??? Started in the middle of fran two days ago and I cannot stand missing WODS, it's making me crazy....

#42 - Js

It's all we do man... besides play whatever sports we still play (if any at all)
You definately won't find us doing extra body building stuff. Maybe taking some time to work on skills (the lifts and gymnastics exercises), but that's it my friend.

Chris, thanks I have been a fan for a long time, and did a couple of workouts, but never stuck with it. This is the year for change! PS sorry to ask this on this page but i figured it was a rest day and no one would mind. All workouts are scaleable right?

No, I'm not that Barry Cooper. I find it funny though that he is by far the top Google result on my name.

Here is my take on drugs: if you curtail supply, with a fixed demand, prices go up. Drug supply is curtailed in two ways: criminalization, and assassination. In the latter, you kill competitors. This is the reason drugs "create" crime. It's sort of a free market dynamic where decimating your competition literally entails shooting them.

But absent criminalization, this tactic would not work. Cocaine, Heroin, LSD and Marjijuana would be available at every corner drug store. You would eliminate the crime completely, by eliminating the motivation.

That in turn raises the question of undesired social consequences from people (presumably) consuming more drugs.

In my own view, there are no drugs that match the systematic destructiveness of alcohol. Alcohol, already, is a factor in drunk driving, spousal abuse, gun crimes, and many other anti-social acts.

Heroin users, if they commit crimes, do so to buy more dope, sold at prices that are 10x the production costs.

The only possible exception is Speed, in its various forms, which does drive people nuts. Excellent cases in point are Jean-Paul Sartre and Charles Whitman, both utter lunatics.

In my view, we should legalize all of it--everything--and increase dramatically the penalties for crimes committed while under the influence; but otherwise leave alone people who are just trying to buy a bit of chemical solace.

We eliminate in one stroke the DEA, the Columbian cartels sales in the United States, and most drug related crimes.

For that reason, of course, the Columbians keep a lot of lobbyists on their payroll to make sure this never happens.

We have a number of dry counties in Kentucky. Based on numerous stories I've heard, they aren't actually dry, since there are numerous illegal alcohol dealers. THOSE are the people who go to church with the religious and sing the praises of sobriety.

In general, I choose not to be cynical, but please don't think my eyes are shut to the many, many abuses that happen every day.

# 46 Lucien Nicholson-
# 52 Barry Cooper-

The answer to living in a society with too much legislation is not to make controlled substance usage legal.

Any analogy to (alcohol) Prohibiton is faulty, as Heroin, Cocaine, Methamphetmaine, MDMA,and yes, marijuana are far more dangerous to consumers than demon rum.

Then consider the crime associated with drugs, either due to altered states of consciousness, or desire to obtain funds for drugs or to eliminate competition.

What is really "scary" is that some people believe that legalization is the answer.

People just seeking "a bit of chemical solace"? Have you ever interviewed a crack addict? A heroin junkie? A meth-head? Legalization of controlled substances would result in a society of zombie-addicts; be careful what you pray for.

If you want chemical solace, go do Fran.
Take care and be well.

CF Rainer is LEGIT!

Barry in #52--

I agree with much of what you point out regarding the crime involved in drugs etc, with the exception of isolating alcohol as the worst citing drunk driving, domestic violence etc, when it seems to be only the most reported because of its widespread legal use. I argue that if/when more drugs become conveniently available through legal means, the correlating numbers for those will rise as well...

Also, are you suggesting that price will drop if drugs become legal? I feel you allude to this in your heroin example saying users pay more than 10x the cost of production.

The example that came to my mind immediately was the cost of cigarettes, which by most estimates have a production cost of between .10 and .25 cents per pack, yet are sold well over this price sometimes by 2000% or more.

I will not debate the dangers of nicotene vs. opium, just using price as an example.

I lean towards believing that if drugs became available legally we may see an initial decrease in price and increase in sources from which to purchase (although it is highly doubtful that "every corner drug store will have heroin and cocaine on hand"), but I wouldnt bet this pattern would last. Eventually the federal tax would increase well beyond production, and then the states would add on their own taxes increasing the price even higher.

Addiction would not dwindle with increased availability. People addicted will still be addicted and many can argue that if they are not able to afford to purchase drugs legally would simply shift from home robberies, and assaults to robbing the corner drug stores...

#53 AUSA Mike,

I guess we just won't agree. But, since I think liberty is inherently better than the opposite (slavery), I will again point out that crime is just a correlate of drug use. No, I haven't interviewed a heroin junky, but I have known meth users who used the drugs responsibly and subsequently quit it cold turkey when they saw the pile of mess their lives turned into.

When you point out cases of bad addicts, that doesn't necessarily mean that all drug users are 1) addicts or 2) bad people who hurt others.

The analogy to alcohol is a perfect one, in that we saw what prohibition does. It creates black markets and when something is illegal, only people who would like to profit from illegal activities get involved. Those people tend to be less scrupulous and violent by nature. Prices rise, increasing the incidence of property and violent crimes.

Show me where marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol. I've yet to hear of a marijuana overdose, or a marijuana-addled rape, or any other crimes that alcohol is implicated with.

The fact still remains that whether you think the Federal Government should keep controlled substances illegal is immaterial. It is not Constitutional. It is for the states and the individuals to retain those powers. See the 10th Amendment.

If we ignore the Constitution on this issue, why not ignore it on all issues.

On the charge that legalizing drugs would result in a society of "zombie-addicts," I highly doubt that. That's like saying legal alcohol will lead to a society of wino-degenerates. Or maybe legal happy meals would lead to a society of diabetic fatties. A large number of Americans have already used illegal drugs, yet have discontinued their use. Drugs are widely available, yet I would say that most people aren't willing to waste their lives to inject heroin all day. Of course, a small number will. So what? Is it my right to force them not to or to imprison them? Again, where in the Constitution is that power delegated to the Federal government?

In the past week, my globogym decided to add a ton of useless equipment and shift them around, rendering most wods--in the past done mostly as rx'd--extraordinarily difficult. Worst offender is the shift of the pullup bar (attached to the tri pulldown machine) right against the wall. Kips are now almost impossible. Schedule doesn't permit most trips to the nearest affiliate, and the gym I go to is the only one within two miles of me. Living in Brooklyn makes the garage gym concept impossible. Super depressed.

Bingo,

Intent, or imputed intent (recklessness, wilful blindness)is a precondition for conviction of most big "C" crimes.

Most laws are regulatory and not criminal. Something less than intent for conviction of a regulatory offence - i.e., negligence, failure to meet a reasonable standard of conduct.

I don't have a problem with this. Regulatory offences are intended to protect the public from the harms resulting from things like polluting drinking water or selling bad food. These offences would be unenforceable if they required intent.

Give me a break. Law enforcement is continually having their hands tied while dangerous people walk.

#53: I've seen plenty of drunks. They are not pretty, either. And how is it you are interviewing these people? Is it not because--the law notwithstanding--they got their fix repeatedly?

According to the first website that popped up on Google, we spent some $22 billion on the War on Drugs last year. This does not factor in all the people incarcerated because of drug dealing or using.

To me, the intelligent question is this: do the protections offered by the criminalization of drugs outweigh the financial and social costs?

What is the potential downside? People switching from alcohol addiction to drug addiction?

People will find ways to alter their minds. Prozac is legal, but heroin is not. Why? Pure heroin is not dangerous, if administered properly.

When you look at large sections of cities blighted by the fact that the best paying jobs are drug dealer and pimp, coupled with the crime that goes with this, is it not possible to conclude that maybe the system we have in place is not working? Why will it work better five years from now? Ten years from now? Fifty years from now? What is going to change? Are we going to invade Columbia? That's an option, but not a great option.

How's this: legalization of drugs, coupled with fairly high taxation? Rather than being a net cost, drugs become a source of net revenue.

Net, net, for me: very few people I know who smoke weed have much trouble getting it. I don't know anyone who uses coke, but from what I hear, that is readily available too, if you know the right people.

People that want it are getting it. The War on Drugs isn't working, and as already stated, it is a usurpation of authority by the Federal Government, like Prohibition, that was not ratified by the States.

yesterday was a rest day for me, so did my own WOD today

5 rounds for time:

10 OHS @ 135 lbs
20 L pull ups

time: 17:41
body: destroyed

AUSA Mike # 53, you don't know that - what if we took the same resources we now spend on drug enforcement (which dwarf almost any domestic spending when you add it all up) and spent it on prevention and treatment? I doubt we would end up with a "a society of zombie-addicts" since most people, like me, just don't get why anyone uses that stuff anyway.

Bingo, you asked about intent, and got an incomplete, though basically true, answer from AUSA Mike - not all crimes are specific intent crimes. There is a state of mind called "recklessness" as in manslaughter cases, and even criminal negligence as in some environmental cases. Of course, in misdemeanor offenses, intent is often irrelevant. We're talking only felonies here. Most drug crimes, including possession with intent to distribute, are specific intent crimes. But in those cases, "intent" is something of a term of art, it is hard to prove what is actually going through someone's head and prosecutors are rarely if ever held to that burden. Intent can be inferred, for example from the fact of possession of a certain amount of drugs.

"Recklessness" is hard to describe - the example I use is driving 60 mph the wrong way on a one way street. You don't know for sure you will kill anyone, you don't specifically intend to, but chances are you will, and you know that. It's "more than negigence." And at least 50,000 angels can dance on the head of a pin. Again the proof of recklessness is often inferential.

As for the article, I found it somewhat overwrought. I don't feel like I am living in a police state, and just don't buy that an overzealous prosecutor could really find me guilty of any federal offense, let alone three per day. That kind of hyperbolic indulgence just made the rest of his article not credible.
Falsus in unum ... It's somewhat ironic that he complained about scare tactics by the media, while engaging in wholesale scare tactics (about the government) himself.

Dr. Tabata (or his surrogate) really kicked my butt the other day. Yesterday I was a DNF for the day. Today I feel okay, plan to run and swim.

Happy rest day, everyone.

Clearly we need more lawyers.

Actually, the statistic appears to be that we have some 500,000 people in prison for drug offenses. One link I read said the average cost was $32,000 each, which sounds about right since you have room and board plus guards.

Multiplying that out, I get another $16 billion. Now, in the days of the Stimulus, that doesn't sound like a lot of money, but that's because we are rapidly going bankrupt, and gunning the accelerator. In a rational polity, though, that would be a substantial amount of money.

The critical question here is: did removing those people from the population reduce violent or property crime? Obviously, I am not suggesting either of those (violent or property crime) be decriminalized, so people who commit them would and should continue to be jailed. But couldn't we bust them for things that actually hurt other people?

***FRAT***

2 days of GOMAD left and I am counting down every hour. Really looking forward to getting back on the main site and back to Paleo, I'm never going to want a glass of milk again!

Go FRAT!

missed the 7 X 1 weighted pull-ups earlier this week, so made it up today

50/60/70/80/85/90/100

As much as I'm happy for this rest day I'm dying to know what tomorrow's WOD is

Joe,

Are you talking about the damage drugs are doing right now, while they are illegal? Surely that is irrelevant? The question is what changes--positive and negative--would accrue from legalizing them. You do understand, don't you, that that would create a large domestic business segment, and reduce or eliminate the power of the Columbian and Mexican drug cartels? They are killing each other in the streets in Mexico right now. Drug lords seemingly control most of the government.

Why? Because of the trillions of dollars to be made here, illegally, and in spite of (really because of) their illegality.

And you miss the point, too, that Congress has no power to regulate INTRAstate commerce. I used the example of an intra-California drug trade earlier. There is no authority at all for Congress to intervene until it crosses State lines.

You are no doubt right that this is, so to speak, a pipe dream, given the dollars involved. Still, that doesn't prevent us from trying to think clearly.

Lunge/SU WOD, details there.

17:10

Prole #58,

That was helpful. Thanks.

The application of jury nullification would be in the case of prosecution of a regulatory offense without malice or intent in the absence of a victim. Would not this be an opportunity for jury nullification, if such a thing existed.

With thanks to Prole for giving me the vocabulary I was lacking.

Long time listener, first time caller.

As a Deputy District Attorney it shouldn't come as a surprise that I agree with AUSA Mike. We are not all felons. We don't live in a police state. The average American does not commit 3 felonies per day in his/her normal course of waking, going to work, eating, playing with kids, sleeping, etc. The article really lacked in my opinion of any supporting evidence. A few statistics here and there to make it sound good, but nothing really substantive. As a prosecutor, I need a lot more than just a police report stating someone has broken the law to even FILE a case, let alone successfully get a conviction. Let us not forget there are defense attorneys on the other side who are arguing for their clients innocence or mitigation whatever the case may be. They act as a buffer to overzealous government intrusion on a person's "civil liberties" as it's being called. Committing a crime is not a civil liberty. By the way, we only successfully prosecute when someone has done a bad deed. And # 62 Kamper, you are wrong, intent is still highly relevant in misdemeanors. You can't prove a theft or burglary without intent.

My take on some of the "new crimes" is that many of these are reactions to new bad acts committed by criminals such as identity theft or the fraudulent use of another's ATM card or credit card. They didn't have identity theft in the 1800's when the Constitution was written. Doesn't mean that it is any less repugnant now or less of an authentic crime! Times change, everyone keeps up with it including government.

As far as drug usage is concerned, have no doubt it is a motivating factor in a large number of crimes. Forget the distribution aspect. People steal, rob and cheat in order to get money to purchase drugs. I would like to point out, contrary to so many statements in this comment, that it is very difficult to end up in prison over simple drug possession. The courts have all kinds of treatment programs, drug courts, voter intiated propositions that mandate a non-violent drug offender shall be treated rather than go to prison. And let me tell you that many criminals are repeat offenders to those programs. Many have successfully completed the program numerous times, yet keep coming back for more. The "drug users" that end up in prison are there because they have done something besides just using drugs (such as stealing or robbing), have a criminal history that includes something violent, or just plain refuse treatment. Furthermore, it takes a lot of criminal violations for a drug user to get to prison. They all start out with the treatment, then probation, a little county jail time, and only at the end of the road, when they literally are a "zombie" do they make it to the joint.

Our perception that violent crime is up is fueled by the media. We have top selling games like Grand Theft Auto. Music is dominated by gangster rap. Movies highlight criminal activity and make it glamorous and show little real consequences for the crimes portrayed in them.

Finally, if you don't like the law, write your congressman and vote. America has a ridiculously low voter turn out. Too many people say their vote doesn't count so they don't vote but then complain about the laws and their politicians. You have no right to complain if you don't vote. We don't need term limits, we need people to turn out and vote.

I can't believe I wrote so much on my first post. Take care.

I sneezed last might and my lower abs/groin area felt like I had been kicked by a horse. The abs and lunges this week have taken their toll.

# 72 bingo-

Now I think I understand your question!

# 62 Kamper's description of recklessness was not responsive to your question, and his attempt to describe criminal intent was also incomplete...not surprising as entire books have been written on the topic.

bingo, crimes are also classifed as "malum per se" (inherently evil or wrong, e.g, murder) or "malum prohibitum" (illegal becasue made so by the legislature, e.g., regulatory offenses, or spitting on the sidewalk).

I understand your question to be: Would jury nullification be justified in the criminal trial involving a defendant accused of breaking an unjustlaw or a law enforced unreasonably?

As an officer of the court,I oppose jury nullification becasue it is a form of lawlesssness itself.

Could you provide a hypothetical so that I could better respond to your question?

# 56 LucienN-

Respectfully agree to disagree.
The courts have universally held that the Controlled Substance Act, 21 USC 801, et. seq., is suppported by the very Commerce Clause you cite.

Rest up, all.

had a soccer game last night, so i did yesterday's w.o.d.

walking lunge 50m/situps

10:47

This is the core: "(5) Controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate cannot be differentiated from controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate. Thus, it is not feasible to distinguish, in terms of controls, between controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate and controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate."

Thus, as a result of a pragmatic difficulty, the intent of the Constitution to allow States to regulate themselves is vitiated.

No intelligent person would argue that the innumerable rulings by which the Federal Government has usurpted the power granted to the States in the Constitution were legalistically incorrect, or fully indefensible in a legal context.

At the same time, if you look at the big picture, California--as one example--wants to generalize access to "medical" marijuana. Obviously, that rule has been abused AND THAT WAS THE INTENT. They are simply trying to skirt a regulation that is intrusive.

I DON'T WAN'T PEOPLE TELLING ME WHAT TO DO IF I'M NOT HURTING THEM, OR DEMANDING ANYTHING FROM THEM.

If I hurt someone, fine, there need to be consequences. If I'm a screwup and wind up on the dole, then the people paying the dole have every right to tell me how to live my life. If I don't like it, then I need to get act together.

But nothing, nothing, nothing in the intent or letter of the Constitution was intended to curtail simple human freedoms BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

And even there, by what right does the Federal Government arrogate to itself the right to proclaim certain drugs illicit? Because the United States (i.e. the Federal Government) signed some treaty? Did the States ratify it? Were they asked, except through the persons of a handful of representatives?

The entire argument about controlling interstate commerce depends on the idea that this trade SHOULD be controlled. That idea, in turn, is unConstitutional. All powers not EXPLICITLY vested in the Federal Government devolve to the States. Yes, you find the power to regulate trade. No, you do not find the power to dictate what can and should be traded. That is a value judgement, and that power was vested in the States.

This is why our nation is such a mess. The national government simply has too much power. They are bankrupting all of us. Why? In short: because they CAN.

A question for this debate:
For the legalize drug crowd, should legalization include, what are now considered to be, prescriptin drugs? Should we be given access to any and all kinds of pain killers and other medicine for any and all ailments or for whatever reason without any kind of regulation? Why or why not?

I'd love to see the data that supports the basis for saying smoking pot is far more dangerous than alcohol. Or why you cannot compare one to the other, even IF one is more dangerous than the other. Because that's not what I've ever seen.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/31_07_06_drugsreport.pdf

In addition to classifying cannibis as almost 20% less likely to create dependence, they rank it as causing 20% less physical and social harm.

Smoking cigarettes is shown to have, by far, the highest correlation with causing early death among controlled substances. Lets start putting tobacco smokers in jail. Until we do that, any argument for criminalizing other drugs has no moral or rational standing.

Not that we should do either, just making a point.

Bingo,

I'm not sure why jury nullification of a law creating a regulatory crime would be more or less acceptable than jury nullification of a true crime. Both crimes embody the will of the legislature.

Is your point that where a person intentionally commits a crime, the character of the person's actions is somehow worse than if the person commits a crime by falling below the applicable standard of care? I agree that the intentional crime is worse from the point of view of the moral culpability of the accused, but the object of jury nullification is to impugn the law, not to immunize the accused from liability – or at least that’s how I think of it. Perhaps I am being simplistic (or legalistic – my wife thinks the two are often the same) and a jury considering nullification would be as equally focused on the accused’s culpability or lack of culpability, as it would on the justice of the law under which the accused has been charged.

Rest days are so boring that I wish I could go 7 days a week, but I know rest is paramount to growth and strenght/stamina. Anyway, muscles I didn't know I had are sore from these WOD's (almost 2 months in).

Got the comment while doing CFT. "Didn't know a crossfitter could lift that kinda weight?"

Felt like saying, we can lift a house and do Fran in the time you take to rest between grunting bench press sets you do hahaha.

Thanks for the inspiration, the competitive aspect, with yourself and your times, as well as the benchmark others set is great.

When this exact argument comes up (legalizing it) usually I give out a huge rant. This time I'll let everyone make their own opinions (I really don't mind if one thinks either way of the situation, that's what opinions are for). However, please note that when discussing "drugs" you MUST include alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine. Please take a look at this short article/study (and there are plenty more like it if you look) that observes the addictive nature of specific drugs...to include alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, and other drugs. That’s the last I’ll speak of this.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/basicfax5.htm

Nothing like a little rest day mental gymnastics. I am not jumping into the middle of this argument thread, but it is entertaining. Now get back to work! You never know when "the man" is watching...

Love seeing my box on the main page.

Re: pot more dangerous than alcohol: LMAO! How about some facts to back that up. I say legalize it all and stop the Nanny State BS. If you aren't responsible enough not to kill yourself with legalized meth, that's not the taxpayer's problem, it's yours.

Education >> Legislation

Dutch,

The argument I am actually making is that individual States should determine their own policies.

80 years ago, all sorts of things were legal. My grandmother was addicted to prescription sleeping pills. I know several people now who can't go to sleep without them.

Yes, I would even allow steroids to be legalized, although PARTICULARLY there I would want to stiffen penalties for crimes committed under their influence.

Legally, you could create a presumption that drugs influence behavior, and that antisocial behavior coupled with drugs is the outcome of a CHOICE made while sober to become otherwise.

Some people just can't get their act together. This fact should not cause a generalized lessening of the liberties of everyone else.

# 81 Prole-

Please forgive me if I sound nit-picky, but I think that the following distinction is important to recognize: Theoretically, the crimes actually embody the will of the people, made into law by the legislature.

# 85 Barry Cooper-

THAT argmuent was made (and lost) betweeen 1861 and 1865...

15/M/130

11 minutes flat

50m Walking Lunges
50 situps using dumb bells

4 rounds - "I wanted a quick swig but forced myself to finish"

Any suggestions for mid back back spasms??? Started in the middle of fran two days ago and I cannot stand missing WODS, it's making me crazy....

Swam 6x100, 8x50, total work time 16:22, rested as needed between intervals. Still pathetically slow, but went further and faster than last time. Ten minutes easy run to the pool and back.

Carry on, rest day pundits!

m/245/38/73"
took rest day on tuesday

50 pull downs 140lbs
1/4 mile on eliptical
95 lbs thruster
1/2 mile on eliptical
95 lbs thrusters
1/4 mile on eliptical
50 pull downs 140 lbs
18:59:29

I wanted to say thanks to Todd and all the instructors at the Reno, Level 1 cert. last weekend. You couldn't ask for a more professional, informative and entertaining instructor cadre. From the moment the first block of instruction began it became obvious that not only do they knew their shit, but they know that the data is true and holds up no matter how you look at it. And that keep going one lecture after another and into the physical application instruction outside. It's one thing to be able to market a "fitness product" with quotes from quacks, doctors for hire and celebrity endorsements, but another thing entirely to be able to point to your staff and say "there it is, that's Crossfit that's what it looks like, this is how it trains." The workouts were great, even at 4500 ft. Sometimes it sucks to live at sea level.
Thanks again to Greg Glassman. for putting together such a enthusiastic crew and also for not water down his stuff over the years. I've been a Marine a SEAL and now trainer in Hollywood for over 13 years and the truth is, if you want fitness, real measurable elite level fitness, Crossfit is where you'll find it.
Thanks again
Duff

And I tought about going for one more day and taking friday off ...

I took off today as coach rxd and ... my legs are really sore from all these lunges !

The high crime rate in the US in the 70s and its steady decline since then has more to do with the age of the boomer generation.

In the 70s, the boomers were in their teens and twenties, the age when males testosterone levels are high and they have the disposition toward committing crime - rape, assault, theft.

As they got older, they moved toward and became the establishment, and crime rates dropped with them.

FREAKANOMICS has a great discussion on this topic.

Hi guys, I took my rest day yesterday and today I did yesterday's WOD. I have a question regarding scaling. I don't like scaling much but I'm a newbie, so my times are way high, for example, my time for yesterday's WOD (done today) was 38:04. That's way high, even though I can handle it. So my question is, should I scale or not?, would it make any difference?

#73:

I saw Tucker levitate with his legs crossed once while drinking coffee. He called it the Caffeine Cross. It was amazing and made me believe he was a good coach.

Tucker:

Great instruction. As a gymnastics coach for over a decade, I'm still amazed at how few use these simple methods to scale the Cross. Good stuff!

Did yesterdays wod today. Time 16:00 not great time but it sure felt good!

Does anyone have any suggestions to battle severe soreness following yesterday\'s high rep lunges? It\'s been so long since I did lunges. I am going to take a brisk walk this evening to get the blood flowing, but any other suggestions are welcomed. I read that an epsom salt bath may be useful, but as a skeptic by nature, I am not convinced it will help.

Any ideas from the veteran members would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Michelle

"Some people just can't get their act together. This fact should not cause a generalized lessening of the liberties of everyone else."

It's not "some" people, it's "millions" of people.

Cocaine was involved in 548,608 emergency room visits in 2008. Heroin was involved in 189,780. Meth was involved in 107,575.

9.4 million (8.2%) of full-time workers were illicit drug users.

This isn't a few people spoiling it for everyone else. This is an epidemic and your "solution" would only make it worse.

m/21/155/69''

Decided to push it today with a spinoff last weeks wod

four rounds for time of
15 HSC -135lb
30 pushups

24:00
ouch

Dan,
thanks for the very kind comments. sometimes folks just dont know what scale to use to work toward a movement. this is merely one approach of course not "the apporach" and we try to pass on some views and knowledge for folks to use in the functional world of CrossFit.

i know the healing power of coffee and use it as much as possible during certs. i think the levitation occured as i sprinted toward the bathroom ;)

#73
respectfully i will try and reply to your veiled pointed comment. i do use gymnastics and have done demos and even performed on some available equipment at my certs. but i find it hard to demo and discuss the nuances of movement at the same time while being winded from the demo. im not the spritly younger gentleman of my youth but a more seasoned veteran of life, but im trying.

some of my milage (past and recent injuries), from a fully lived life, causes me some pains but i try my best to get thru the workouts or skills i am working these days. got a whole list of things i suck at and i am checking the things i suck at off my list one at a time.

in my travels i try to be polite, pass on some fun of the sport of my gymnastic youth, pass on some good will and business knowledge for CrossFit, throw out a bit of home spun Texican humor and love, and then try to forgive jerks like you for being who and what you are and thank the good lord that folks such as you are a minority in our CrossFit community.

but if you would care to discuss it further you just let me know.

Much Love to All - even you # 73

tucker

"No intelligent person would argue that the innumerable rulings by which the Federal Government has usurpted the power granted to the States in the Constitution were legalistically incorrect, or fully indefensible in a legal context."

WTF? Each Supreme Court ruling had at least 5 justices who argued that position.

Barry, those rulings served to limit state power and give citizens more liberty. If you're a libertarian, you should support judicial activism, not oppose it.

Arguing that drug use is a "victimless" crime is naive at best. I mean no disrespect but it's from someone who obviously has little experience with drug users. Drug addicts will spend all their money to buy their drugs. They will put their families in the poor house because they chose drugs over loved ones. They usually do lose their jobs. The mood swings brought on by their addiction negatively affects their children creating a cycle and pattern of irrationality if not violence. And let us not forget that only a small fraction of users are actually caught. Arguing that drug users do not hurt anyone else assumes that they sit in their homes content to be high and out of public sight. That is not the way it works. Everyone who drinks has at one point in time driven with maybe just a tad bit too much in them. Users are the same. They drive, they shop, they go get fast food, etc. They get behind the wheel potentially putting everyone else's life in danger. They interact with the world while high creating dangerous situations for others. Not to talk about # 94's good point about the cost to society about those dopers who OD and need to use the emergency room. We already know they don't have insurance because they blow their money on drugs instead. Who picks up that bill?

Kade: Ok, post a photo of an Olympian with his or her pinkies in the air during a clean. Here's a nice shot of Pyrros Dimas, one of the best ever. Don't see any little fingers in the air:

http://www.chidlovski.net/liftup/images/i_athletes/b55.jpg

wfs

Tyler today, details posted there.

Brandon, no one's arguing using drugs is good. The point is criminalization doesn't create better outcomes, and in many creates much worse outcomes. Paul

...FGB...FGB...FGB...

CF Community-
What I love most about you is your passion, whether political or fitness oriented.
Very informed on a wide variety
of topics.
Kiss someone close to you.
Smile at a stranger.
Share a hug. Be thankful. Go front squat.
Out here.

Yesterday's WOD done today - 12:12

I've always liked Prole's thought process even though I've disagreed with many of his conclusions. But three cheers for ausa mike. He has made Prole down right endearing in my book.

And what are the chances that ausa mike will drag out the dead horse of jury nulification in 3 months. That's where I'm placing the over under ladies & gentlemen. Place your bets now the window closes in 3 days.

Where is this heading? What will be the turning point, if any? "THEY" are getting bolder and bolder. People are more and more afraid to be outside the edge of politically correct.

#103 jakers

Thanks for sharing, and for two-gosh-two shout outs in one post!

You're obviously still smarting from our jury nullification exchange the other day... after you embarrassed your buddy (and yourself) by attempting a rescue.

And again, today, you work up your courage and subtly implore others for help and validation. Lame.
FRAT brother, FRAT.

20-10-5
Clean and Jerk. #135
You where not allowed to let go of the bar, regrip, or rest…
8:21
No Faults

Dude you have seriously mis-underestimated what it takes to make me smart. You are certainly not going to succeed where so many have failed.

In two years on the board back up and validation has been far and few between on my rest day posts.

If anything I am slightly irritated my posts were taken down. I thought I was inside the borders for once. I guess I have to exercise a greater level of care.

My time with CrossFit is relatively short compared to others but one thing I have noticed is that the WOD instills humility. I would be surprised if you did the WODS.

"The point is criminalization doesn't create better outcomes, and in many creates much worse outcomes."

That "worse outcome" is called punishment for breaking the law.

Problem with the cost benefit argument against drug laws is that no attempt is ever made to approximate and quantify the benefit. They google the cost and then say "it exceeds the benefit" but where are the numbers? They essentially make a circular argument.

You say the drug laws don't create better outcomes, how do you know that?

Big Mike @ Rainier CF all the way from Florida. Get some weight on that bar...

Jakers-

While you rumintate and draft another brilliant, witty response, let me say in closing that despite your claims of humility, your posts radiate anything but. You have consistently, gratuitously attacked my posts, and added nothing to the conversation.

Your theme of CF longevity and demanding to know if others, who do not post often, are "new here" reveals underlying insecurity. Freud would say you're compensating.

Your posts are very much like flatulence during polite conversation: loud, embarrassing sounds which make you, and only you, feel better. They lend nothing to the topic at hand, and in fact, kill a good conversation.

I will take the high road, and now ignore your embarrassing noise. You have cleared the room.
Well done.

Apologies to the CF community for having ever replied to this guy.

#89: so, because a war was waged against the South, in which 650,000 American soldiers were killed, you are right? Might makes right? That's your argument. I find it morally reprehensible, and Constitutionally ill-founded. The Souths was clearly right in their argument as far as State sovereignty, and Lincoln knew it and respected it. He never argued that States which practiced slavery were to be freed by compulsion by the Federal Government. Four States nominally in the Union--Kentucky, Delaware, Missouri, and Maryland, if memory serves--kept their slaves until after the wars end. His argument with Douglas was about whether future States should decide for themselves if they were Slave or Free, or if the Federal Government could and should make the prohibition of slavery a condition for entering the United States.

The war was forced on Lincoln when the South seceded. None of his options were good, and he picked what he considered then and most scholars consider now the least bad.

There is NO question that ALL of the Founding Fathers would be appalled at what we have wrought. The whole deal, in getting the sundry States to sign on, had to do with them getting to keep their freedoms. Yes, some used it for slavery, but that does not vitiate the principle, which you have not confronted, much less invalidated.

Jeff,

You say "Cocaine was involved in 548,608 emergency room visits in 2008. Heroin was involved in 189,780. Meth was involved in 107,575.

9.4 million (8.2%) of full-time workers were illicit drug users."

To what extent were the drugs people used regulated? How many of these visits were due to people getting bad drugs? How much tax did we collect from the sales of the drugs to offset these social costs?

We have been waging a war on drugs since the 1980's at least--at enormous expense--and nearly 10% of our populace is using drugs? Explain to me how that is a success. It seems to me people who want drugs, get them. Simply citing the statistic which show clearly how poor our success rate is at getting them off the street HURTS your case.

Making guns illegal is supposed to prevent gun crime, right? Yet, what does it do: it empowers criminals, and penalizes law abiding citizens. Right now, drugs are illegal, so we have no ability to regulate their use through coercive pressure on the manufacturers, and taxation.

#103: how did, say, Roe v. Wade increase the liberty of States? It enacted what amounted to binding legislation, that could not be overturned by ANY legislative body, which was not created by any legislative body. 10's, if not 100's of millions of Americans view abortion as murder, as a crime. And yet they can't ban it. Why? Supreme Court activism. This is not an increase in freedom, and it sure as hell does not represent anything actually found in the law as written, or the intent of the people who wrote it.

If you think these rulings increase our liberty, then all I can suppose is you don't know much about the history, or you define liberty as a central authority imposing opinions you happen to agree with on others.

As far as whether drugs constitute a victimless crime, the argument I am making is if they lead to crime, people can be imprisoned for those crimes, with added penalties. I've already said that.

But we aren't putting people in jail for $32,000/year per person for the crimes they commit while on drugs. Drugs ARE the crime, and that is what I'm saying is silly.

To take one example, it appears the Swiss government has been funding heroin addicts for over ten years, with apparently good results. They just rejected a bid to end the program last year: http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/tlcnr.cfm

To pretend that legalizing drugs would NECESSARILY lead to bad outcomes is disingenous. We have a large problem now, and the problem, first and foremost, is that where a pronounced demand exists, supply will find a way, for a price. You don't eliminate the demand by banning drugs.

And you don't necessarily INCREASE the demand if you legalize drugs. What you can do, though, is regulate it. You have legitimate companies, with fixed addresses, and known clinical and management personel, who can be held accountable for the quality of their product, can issue statements on dosing, and who can pay taxes to cover the social consequences of people abusing drugs.

And, to repeat, you increase criminal penalties for crimes commited while high, while simultaneously eradicating the crime of drug possession itself.

The illegal drug business is a TRILLION dollar business. Yes, we can arrest large numbers of key people, like we did yesterday, but will the effect last more than a month or two, until someone steps into the place now vacated? And can we really consider it a success filling our prisons with people who may not actually be dangers to society or themselves?

How long should Ray Charles have served for his crimes?

#89: so, because a war was waged against the South, in which 650,000 American soldiers were killed, you are right? Might makes right? That's your argument. I find it morally reprehensible, and Constitutionally ill-founded. The Souths was clearly right in their argument as far as State sovereignty, and Lincoln knew it and respected it. He never argued that States which practiced slavery were to be freed by compulsion by the Federal Government. Four States nominally in the Union--Kentucky, Delaware, Missouri, and Maryland, if memory serves--kept their slaves until after the wars end. His argument with Douglas was about whether future States should decide for themselves if they were Slave or Free, or if the Federal Government could and should make the prohibition of slavery a condition for entering the United States.

The war was forced on Lincoln when the South seceded. None of his options were good, and he picked what he considered then and most scholars consider now the least bad.

There is NO question that ALL of the Founding Fathers would be appalled at what we have wrought. The whole deal, in getting the sundry States to sign on, had to do with them getting to keep their freedoms. Yes, some used it for slavery, but that does not vitiate the principle, which you have not confronted, much less invalidated.

Jeff,

You say "Cocaine was involved in 548,608 emergency room visits in 2008. Heroin was involved in 189,780. Meth was involved in 107,575.

9.4 million (8.2%) of full-time workers were illicit drug users."

To what extent were the drugs people used regulated? How many of these visits were due to people getting bad drugs? How much tax did we collect from the sales of the drugs to offset these social costs?

We have been waging a war on drugs since the 1980's at least--at enormous expense--and nearly 10% of our populace is using drugs? Explain to me how that is a success. It seems to me people who want drugs, get them. Simply citing the statistic which show clearly how poor our success rate is at getting them off the street HURTS your case.

Making guns illegal is supposed to prevent gun crime, right? Yet, what does it do: it empowers criminals, and penalizes law abiding citizens. Right now, drugs are illegal, so we have no ability to regulate their use through coercive pressure on the manufacturers, and taxation.

#103: how did, say, Roe v. Wade increase the liberty of States? It enacted what amounted to binding legislation, that could not be overturned by ANY legislative body, which was not created by any legislative body. 10's, if not 100's of millions of Americans view abortion as murder, as a crime. And yet they can't ban it. Why? Supreme Court activism. This is not an increase in freedom, and it sure as hell does not represent anything actually found in the law as written, or the intent of the people who wrote it.

If you think these rulings increase our liberty, then all I can suppose is you don't know much about the history, or you define liberty as a central authority imposing opinions you happen to agree with on others.

As far as whether drugs constitute a victimless crime, the argument I am making is if they lead to crime, people can be imprisoned for those crimes, with added penalties. I've already said that.

But we aren't putting people in jail for $32,000/year per person for the crimes they commit while on drugs. Drugs ARE the crime, and that is what I'm saying is silly.

To take one example, it appears the Swiss government has been funding heroin addicts for over ten years, with apparently good results. They just rejected a bid to end the program last year.

To pretend that legalizing drugs would NECESSARILY lead to bad outcomes is disingenous. We have a large problem now, and the problem, first and foremost, is that where a pronounced demand exists, supply will find a way, for a price. You don't eliminate the demand by banning drugs.

And you don't necessarily INCREASE the demand if you legalize drugs. What you can do, though, is regulate it. You have legitimate companies, with fixed addresses, and known clinical and management personel, who can be held accountable for the quality of their product, can issue statements on dosing, and who can pay taxes to cover the social consequences of people abusing drugs.

And, to repeat, you increase criminal penalties for crimes commited while high, while simultaneously eradicating the crime of drug possession itself.

The illegal drug business is a TRILLION dollar business. Yes, we can arrest large numbers of key people, like we did yesterday, but will the effect last more than a month or two, until someone steps into the place now vacated? And can we really consider it a success filling our prisons with people who may not actually be dangers to society or themselves?

How long should Ray Charles have served for his crimes?

#119 Barry Cooper-

We are not fighting a war on drugs, never have, any more than we are fighting a war on murder, robbery, or rape. We are fighting crime, including drug trafficking, and enforcing the law.

It is the drug traffickers who have declared war on society: ruining lives, killing people, and decimating neighborhoods.

I agree with that, except for the drug trafficing, for the reasons I mentioned above.

But the reason violence is useful is because it reduces competition. The reason selling drugs is so attractive is because it is lucrative. The reason our neighborhoods are wrecked is because selling drugs--even though it carries the risk of jail--is so much more attractive than a normal job that people drop out of high school to do it.

Jay-Z financed his first album, if memory serves, selling drugs. If you just watch the movie "Clockers"--even though of course I am no fan of Spike Lee--it gives you a sense of the thing.

All those people would be forced to do something else if there were stores selling drugs. And I suspect we could sell real cocaine for the price of crack cocaine; the former is addictive, but far less so than the latter.

You have to look at this from a systemic perspective. What is at the root of the violence? A desire for power and money. Does it not stand to reason, then, that if you eliminate the potential access to power and money, you eliminate the violence, or greatly mitigate it?

I've known any number of people who used drugs recreationally (this is not "a friend of mine": I've smoked weed, that's it. I don't care for it) who never became a danger to themselves or others. I know people who have used heroin, cocaine, LSD, speed, pain killers, Ecstacy, and other things I forget.

I do feel LSD does something to your brain, as does prolonged Ecstacy use, but at the same time I would support the right of people to make informed decisions on the use of those substances, and I suspect the pharmaceutical quality also affects the outcomes.

One other thing, too. The Edict by means of which the Federal Government usurpted final control of the access of American citizens to drugs labelled "illicit", implicitly accepted that States did, in fact control instrastate commerce.

Given this, the logic is clear that if the source of a given drug can reliably be traced, then the Federal Governments argument is null and void.

Now, I have no idea if the majority of voters of ANY state are pounding down the door to legalize "it"--which for most Rastafarians meant far more than weed, certainly for Bob Marley--but in theory you could label things with the sort of detail and care that the French use for their wines. You have the "Appellation Controlee". They require you to name the region and if memory serves the exact vineyard, at least for wines from the Bordeaux region.

Why couldn't you do this with marjuana? Why couldn't a free market develop, in which the best "weedyard" sold for the most? Why couldn't you enact stiff penalties for exporting out of State, but allow proliferation of home grown products in-State?

I want more diversity. I want more options for everyone. Where I likely confuse people, is I want that both for religious people and for atheists. I want it for social conservatives, and libertines. If you're not hurting anyone, then you should be able to do what you do.

This is not libertarianism. This is true Liberalism, and it's already in the Constitution.

Note to self: abrupt, usurp.

I think many of us look back--no doubt naively--on Europe before the "unifications" really began in earnest. Let's call the unification of France by the Revolutionaries the beginning of the end of the "ancien culture".

Before that, you had endless local clothing, traditions, festivals, and beliefs. You had genuine diversity in behavior and thought.

There is something about the perceived need to create cultural uniformity that is soul-deadening.

Wouldn't it be more fun to travel if the strip mall culture were somehow ended? I've been in at least 15 States in the last year, and large sections of every city could quite literally be cut and pasted into some other city, and you would never notice.

Conservatism is not about killing fun, or rejecting diversity. On the contrary: as a conservative, I want to make sure I remain free to live my life as I choose.

Leftism NECESSARILY entails a loss of freedom for everyone. Those with money no longer have the right to keep it, and those without it are made into dependents of the State.

The only people who are free are the politicans and apparatchniks who run things. They can do whatever they please.

Apolloswabbie, You say no one is arguing that drugs are bad, but whether they should be criminalized. I don't understand the argument. Drugs are bad therefore they should be legal? Is that what people are trying to say? Taking another "victimless" crime: speeding. Driving too fast is unsafe, but it should be a person's individual choice whether to put other people's lives at risk? It is a non-sequiter. I respectfully disagree. When activities are bad they should be outlawed. Simple regulation in this instance would not work. Drug usage is not like driving a car. Our society does not depend upon it and there are not the same (if any) benefits to drug usage as there is to driving. Drugs only cause pain. On a side note, I really liked your article on 40 years in the workout desert. I felt similar when I encountered Crossfit.

AUSA Mike et al on jury nullification - I've been out of the country and my post on jury nullification - and it's necessity - is up from that day.

Also, AUSA Mike - your personal insults to Jakers don't do you any justice either. Condescension says little that's good about the person doing it. Jakers (from my meetings with him in person) is a pretty good fellow. He disagrees. Insulting his intelligence reminds me of an article about Keith Olbermann and how he used to treat Chris Berman when KO was at ESPN. I'll let you deduce what it says.

I've spent time as both a prosecutor and defense attorney and I'm going to guess (same thing I said in my jury null post) that I'm guessing you (Mike) have never been on the defense side of the Bar. I have very good friends who are in law enforcement and prosecutors, DA's, and even an AUSA with whom I served in the Marine Corps.

But Bingo's question is a legit one. Jury nullification is no more a form of lawlessness than the existence of the jury itself is. And there are those in the prosecution bar who argue that we should do away with the jury for just that reason (they just don't convict enough!). People who commit crimes should be punished - no one argues that and it's the red herring that always comes out (we've already seen it up above repeatedly as a means of attacking someone who argues about what a crime is or should be). The real question is what should be a crime?

And saying the "legislature said so" is a cop out when it comes to moral arguments. The legislature also said that a black person was worth less than a white (in the Constitution) and the Supreme Court even said blacks were property. You can't use that appeal to authority as a basis for the moral right or wrong of the point being debated. You're simply saying it's right because "we're the government and we said so". That's the exact question being debated!

Let's talk about malum prohibitum. How about statutory rape? If she's 17 and he's 21, should it be mandatory jail time for the young man because he and his girlfriend had consensual sex? What if it were at her instigation? And he is less "worldly" than she? (I know some states have laws that factor in the difference in ages, but not all do nor did they always.) Is this a case for jury nullification? Why not? Do you think if the kid is "simple" - not retarded, but more in the Forrest Gump mold - that a jury should get to "factor" that in and nullify? Elements of the offense say "nope". I'd like to hear from the hardcore why it's morally correct to put that kid in jail for, oh, I don't know, say 5-7 years of his life.

Any takers?

And anyone who can answer the above I've posited, we can move on more directly to the topic of the article. I agree it's a bit hyperbolic, but I wouldn't call it overly so. There are massive amounts of regulation related to use of federal lands, animal protection, gun regulation, apartment renting, business setup, discrimination, and on and on, not to mention the weird state ones I read from my desk calendar about it being illegal to tie an alligator to a fire-hydrant in Michigan (or something absurd like that).

I think most of those weird State laws come from when someone does something that annoys someone, then they realize they haven't broken any law. So they create one. I think they are normally short term fixes that just never go away.

It's a punishable misdemeanor in many jurisdictions to spit on the sidewalk, which was in most cases a reflection of our former propensity for chewing tobacco.

As far as jury nullification, I kind of hedged on that. You want people to do what the law says--to do otherwise is in my view to tacitly condone the activism of the Supreme Court--but at the same time you want to make maximal use of Local Knowledge, in the Hayekian sense. It's a bit of a contradiction, that ultimately depends--like all of the institutions of a free Republic--on the caliber of the people operating the system.

If you have good people, good things will tend to happen. If you have corrupt people, and a corruptable system, you will get corruption.

It's a constant balancing act. In this particular case, it doesn't sound to me like this is a particularly note-worthy or large problem. As I said then, most guilty people tend to get convicted, and most innocent people tend to be exonerated. We do tend to fail on the side of releasing the guilty, but except in the most egregious cases, this is not an unmanagable problem. Preventing any guilty people from going free would almost necessarily lead to the innocent being convicted.

I think saying that jury nullification encourages "lawlessness" is to ignore why we have juries in the first instance. Why do we even need them? What is the logical justification for having people not trained in the law decide any person's case? The early examples provided, and a student of legal history will tell you, that juries exist as a check on governmental power. And if governmental excess were confined only to the time of William Penn, then wouldn't the double-jeopardy clause have fixed that and obviated the need for the jury at all?

Answer - No. Like it or not, over-reaching prosecutors exist, despite Mike's protestations to the contrary. You don't think so, look at the Duke lacrosse case. You think DA's/ADA's don't care about conviction records more (in some cases) than "justice" - you haven't spent enough time in a courtroom? I don't impugn the many, many (majority) great prosecutors (federal and state) who are out there by saying that. It's simply a fact that there are knuckleheads in any profession and the ranks of the government are not immune. All of my friends who are prosecutors would agree. No one not pushing an agenda could say otherwise with a straight face.

So, is everything necessarily legislated as illegal mean it should be illegal? Or is malum in se? Of course not. And the article points out that there are many malum prohibitum that make us criminal inadvertently - and that's not a good thing. Laws that are ignored in enforcement should not exist in the first place and are a moral nullity. Sodomy comes to mind as it is almost always added as a tack-on charge or used in homosexual cases - i.e. no one's running out to prosecute a husband getting a (vehicle in the military inventory) from the missus after a hard days' work. So, why do we have the law written as broadly as we do? For "prosecutorial discretion"? Thanks, but why don't we just write what we mean and prosecute that which we find truly offensive to our sensibilities - i.e. criminal?

To return us to our article, do we believe that the legislature only writes regulations and prohibitions for the "will of the people" and not for the "will of the special interest"? And please don't tell me if I vote, that fixes everything. That's another cop out for justifying governmental power ("you gave it, now we get to use it") and ignores the underlying question of the article.

#16 Dale_Saran -

I think everyone, including AUSA Mike, would agree that juries bring their own sense of right and wrong to their deliberations, and that as you noted in your other post, tailor their responses to produce a desired outcome. I think that Mike's real concern, as is mine, is the idea of jury nullification as a proactive tool. Groups like FIJA (Full Informed Jury Association) advocate that individuals should seek placement on a jury so that they can nullify. Certainly, you would agree that an individual who, in their heart of hearts, could never convict an individual of marijuana possession has no place on a jury dealing with that charge. Such "lawmaking" via refusing to enforce the law is not the place of a criminal trial jury.

On the issue at hand, it's obvious that this article is second rate hyperbole. There are more crimes being committed today than in previous years because there are more people and we do more things. Technology related crimes, environmental crimes, import/export, we are constantly adding new statutes to make sure that our definitions of criminal activity keeps pace with the myriad ways in which we interact with each other.

Finally, on the issue of legalization: Some have argued that legalization will result in less crime; that argument is utterly ridiculous. First, let's briefly note that if we got rid of all of our criminal statutes and common law crimes, we'd officially have no crime at all. To say that there is less crime because we stopped counting that conduct as criminal is idiocy.

Barry Cooper has argued that legalizing narcotics will reduce crime by putting the business in the hands of respectable companies, open up the market to competition, and thus driving the bad element out of the market. He also notes that banning the supply does nothing to curb demand. First, I think the idea that ConAgra and Phillip Morris are going to jump in the pot business and Pfizer is going to start pumping out meth and MDMA just because it's legal is a bit bold, but really, this argument focuses on the external crime and ignores the internal/social damage that the anti-drug laws were designed to address.

Drugs have a negative impact. They destroy lives and families and jeopardize the future of our society. Drugs kill, they make people sick, stupid, and violent; in the best argument of pot smokers, they make people just sit on their couch and do nothing. All of this is destructive for society and society has an interest in preserving itself. BC is right, restricting supply won't restrict demand - any economist can tell you they are independant of each other. The problem is we can't very well legislate away demand (how do we pass a law making people not want drugs?) the government does take steps through drug awareness initiatives to teach people about the ills of narcotics use and thereby reduce demand, but it is certainly worth the effort to disrupt supply to prevent those that we could not convince to abstain from causing more harm. Certainly this is reasonable! Would you do away with prescriptions for medications? Allow any guy off the street to purchase dynamite?

What's more, even if, for the sake of argument, we accepted that legalization would stop muderous cartels, it would still create an even bigger problem. First, demand would rise as individuals who did not partake because it was against the law would no longer be incentivized to abstain, and over the long term, those law abiding corporations that moved into the market would garner more and more users through their marketing campaigns. Next, as all these addicts blow their lives and money on cheap drugs (we've increased supply which has lowered price and increased availability! Yay us!) they'll once again turn to (at best) petty crime to secure funds to sustain their habit (I'm certain that AUSA Mike will confirm that 90+% of serious meth and crack abusers are incapable of maintaining even the most rudimentary employment) because I assure you, even though they're good corporate citizens, Pfizer and Phillip Morris ain't giving it away for free!

"But wait!" comes the cry, "we'll tax and regulate it! That will make it better!" Ah, I see now, you plan on trading "you can't have it because it's illegal" for "you can't have it because it's too expensive and you don't have the right papers." That's been tried before - anyone suggesting this argument would do well to read a book or two on colonial smuggling in the face of the Acts of Trade or the American public's response to the 18th Amendment.

Ok, I've written a bunch and I'm stopping now but I hope I've made my point that drugs are bad, legalizing them is a terrible idea, jury nullification is not a good thing, and despite the fact that there are 4,500+ crimes on the books, we don't really live in a police state.

Word.

My WOD
95# thrusters x 21
800 meter run
95# thrusters x 15
400 meter run
95# thrusters x 9
800 meter run 18:37

The thrusters are feeling like home now that I do the full range of motion. It is a whole new world of hurt and I am loving it.

My beautiful wife is on her 3rd day of crossfit and the boys are itching to get in the basement and show me handstands and box jumps. Life is good

So what is the rationale for trial by jury? What does a jury do? The legislature makes the laws, the executive (broadly defined) enforces the laws, the judiciary interprets the laws and the jury? it is the so-called "trier of fact". But the jury also passes a verdict. In so-doing it finds more than facts, it applies the law to facts, it interprets the manner in which the law applies to a set of circumstances so that it can say this law (as we understand it - legal interpretation) applies to the conduct of this person (as we understand it - finding of fact) in one way or another - Innocent or Guilty!

The jury has an important role to play in this law making/interpreting/enforcing process. I am repeating here what Dale has said. We usually think of the division of powers as being between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. But the jury, within the trial context, is a further division of powers. The jury is chosen from the accused's peers (or so goes the theory). The jury is supposed to reflect more accurately than the legislature, the executive or the judiciary, the social and moral attributes of the body politic and of the accused. Why is that? Shouldn't the legislature have greater fidelity to the citizens of the nation whom it represents than a jury picked almost at random? Why not let the judge make the findings of fact and decide verdicts (of course they do where the accused elects trial by Judge alone - but why give every accused the option of trial by his or her peers [unless she has been accused of terrorism])? Because we, and the nobles who wrestled with King John, do not trust that the executive and the judiciary will not act together. So we think we need juries to counteract the tendencies of the executive and the judiciary to collude. But do we want juries to have the power to counteract the will of the legislature? I think the answer is yes, but I am curious to know about the effects of a particular instance of jury nullification - what next? Is the effect similar to the Supreme Court declaring a law to be unconstitutional?

Is there a difference between saying: "the law is wrong", and "the law should not capture this guy's deed"? I guess the first is jury nullification and the second is a verdict of innocent. Anyway, I wish a group of twelve men and women could nullify the Leafs, better yet, they could nullify the press that keeps telling me how horrible they are. Listening to it all makes one feel like a prole.

John:

I have no view o legalizing drugs. The economics of it are, at best, speculative on either side (as to what would happen in the event of legalization). My experience in prosecuting and defending people with drug problems leaves me with a profound appreciation for what drug use can do to people. I've watched people simply wither away on heroin and meth. It ain't pretty and I doubt there is a "responsible" way to use either (Coleridge be darned).

On jury nullification, I agree with your point that a person who has an agenda should not sit on a jury. But I don't agree that a jury doesn't have the right to nullify under the facts and circumstances of a particular case. You've given a hypo that ignores mine. Answer my question, honestly, on the statutory rape example I gave. tell me why it is "wrong" for a jury to nullify in that circumstance. And an appeal to authority that "the legislature said so" is, IMO, a duck on the moral issue.

As to the author's piece - I don't find it to be hyperbolic and your point does nothing to refute the questions I've raised about the regulations regarding businesses, guns, the environment, cracked windshields, muffler emissions, having your headlights on when it's cloudy, spitting on the sidewalk, and on and on. He may well be right - I'm a lawyer and there are simply too many laws, regulations, administrative rules, etc. for me to honestly say whether he's right or wrong about all of us breaking three laws a day.

And again - you've done nothing to address the issue of those laws being "on the books" but not enforced - and that somehow being "okay". My sodomy example also goes unrebutted.

I know you spent more time on the drug legalization issue, but that's a sidelight to the author's point. I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Well said Dale Saran.

Like AUSA Mike I believe that, despite its flaws, we have the best legal system in the world. Our system was created to include juries of our peers vested with the power to determine guilt or innocence. History supports the view that juries typically take their responsibility seriously, despite occasions when observers may feel differently.

It is clearly contemplated in the structure of our system of law enforcement and prosecution that occasions may arise when juries will determine that a defendant is not guilty (despite the fact that the statute and the facts presented in court might say otherwise at least as a technical matter). When that occurs, it serves as a signal of perhaps deeper problems such as a general mistrust of legislators, prosecutors or law enforcement professionals. We should use these occasions to examine the underlying problem because our system is built on the foundation of mutual trust and the belief of the citizenry that it is fundamentally fair. I believe that our founders were willing to accept that occasions of jury nullification could occur because we as free citizens can use it to gain awareness of such problems and work to remedy them by exercising our rights as free citizens in a democracy.

Thanks to all working in good faith to keep us safe and increase freedom for all individuals.

I have argued in favor of legalizing drugs, yes, but in support of my broader contention that the individual States should be able to make their own laws, and that that was the express intent of the people who wrote our Constitution.

Upside/downside is an empirical question. In order to gather data, we would have to either reference other countries which have tried legalizing drugs, or conduct experiments within our borders.

One can accept the argument that the States should be allowed to legalize intraState drug cultivation and sale, without any of the actual States agreeing to do so. All fifty could simply reject that option, even if the legality of it were demonstrated incontrovertibly.

To my mind, the best system of justice and government is one in which all the power centers are in rough proportion to one another. You need to have individual choice, communal choice, State choice, national choice, and of course physical protection from the desire of other nations to impose their mores on us.

We are out of proportion. The Middle--the Federal Government--is far too powerful. It has arrogated to itself, for example, the power to impose socialized medicine on all the States. It has arrogated to itself the power to impose energy regulations on all the States. Examples can be multiplied.

The sundry residual laws Dale references are, in most cases, irrelevant to the lives of most Americans. They aren't enforced, and when they are, it is in general as additional charges tacked on to acts we would not hesitate to label crimes, like rape.

It's an imperfect system, but it is one which allows wide individual discretion. You can charge rape, but not sodomy. The prosecutor has choices, depending on his or her perception of the facts of the case.

Juries, likewise, have choices. We want them to have this choice when they use it wisely. That's a good thing. We DON'T want them to have it when they abuse it.

To determine if the system as a whole is good or bad is impossible to answer in the abstract. It has the potential both to curb abuses, and to enable them. What happens is always local.

Our nation depends, integrally, on the moral fiber and intellectual capacity of our people. It is utterly corruptible if the people become corrupt. In large measure, this seems to be happening. But it is potentially the most just, most humane system ever devised, with good people operating it.

Thus, my net point is that we can't speak abstractly about the desirability of all the laws on the books, without looking at how they are used. Right now, the Constitution is being abused to confer on the Federal Government power it was never intended to have. To my mind, that is by far the most immediate problem.

It very simply should not matter as much as it does who is in the White House.

Was at some CLE the other day and one of the subjects had to do with search and seizures in the computer context. Turns out Congress passed (and then updated) an act called the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 USC 1030) and on its face it makes any unauthorized use/access of any computer a felony. So, as the lecturer said (a law professor at Univ. of Minnesota), if you let me use your computer and you said I could use it for 5 mins to check my email and I exceeded that authorization, I have committed a felony under the Act.

No kidding. While I am certain this will never be prosecuted, the fact that it is a law and can be used is repugnant.