Attorney General Jeff Sessions is rolling back Obama-era Justice Department charging and sentencing guidelines, instructing federal prosecutors to charge defendants with the most serious crime possible.

"It is a core principle that prosecutors should charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense," Sessions wrote in a memo sent Thursday night. "This policy affirms our responsibility to enforce the law, is moral and just, and produces consistency."

The memo marks a drastically different approach to drug-related offenses than the one taken under former Attorney General Eric Holder, who had ordered federal prosecutors in 2013 to refrain from charging defendants with certain offenses that could see long mandatory minimum sentences.


"This policy fully utilizes the tools Congress has given us," Sessions wrote. "By definition, the most serious offenses are those that carry the most substantial guidelines sentence, including mandatory minimum sentences."

Sessions's memo marks the administration's first major criminal justice effort to crackdown on drug crime, a promise touted by President Trump on the campaign trail.

Trump billed himself as the "law-and-order candidate" and often railed against what he dubbed anti-law enforcement policies by the Obama administration.

The new guidelines instruct prosecutors to "disclose to the sentencing court all facts that impact the sentencing guidelines or mandatory minimum sentences" — a significant departure from Holder's policies, which directed prosecutors not to disclose the quantity of drugs to courts to avoid strict mandatory minimum sentences unless the defendant was a gang leader or repeat criminal offender.

Link

I agree 100% that it is the job of prosecutors to pursue the most serious charges and penalties possible. When prosecutors and law enforcement systematically agree to ignore the law the system is weakened.

With that said, when are we as a country going to revisit this ridiculous "war on drugs" that has squandered billions of dollars and produced exactly zero of the stated goals? It's broken, it cost too much and it doesn't do a damn thing about the problem.

quote:

With that said, when are we as a country going to revisit this ridiculous "war on drugs" that has squandered billions of dollars and produced exactly zero of the stated goals? It's broken, it cost too much and it doesn't do a damn thing about the problem.

Indeed

And therein lies the primary problem with Jeff Sessions. His POV regarding drugs is as out of touch with reality as it gets, foolishly antiquated and full to the brim with nonsense.

I'm surprised he hasn't fucked things up worse already, given his predilections. One can only hope that President Trump will keep him tethered enough to avoid the nonsense.

We shall see.

Seriously?

Am I to understand that the drug laws are no longer to be enforced?

I think all laws that are on the books should be enforced. It is not the job of law enforcement or prosecutors to pick and choose in a systematic way what laws to enforce, that is not their role in our system of criminal justice. I also think some laws need to change, particularly when they have shown for decades to be a massive cost burden and do absolutely nothing to solve a problem or change the behaviors they seek to punish.


I think our entire approach to drugs should be reviewed and overhauled completely. Mandatory minimum sentencing for drug offenses has netted us nothing except prisons filled to capacity at tax payer expense. That is but one issue. I am not suggesting legalization is the answer but right now we are not even asking the question. As a taxpayer, I see billions of wasted dollars and want legislative focus on new solutions. The war on drugs is no different than any other ineffective government program. It hasn't worked, isn't going to work and needs to be changed.

I just saw Rand Paul opine that instead of criminal, it should be a health care issue, as if the government hadn't made a complete pig's breakfast of that as well.

There is no consensus. Someone will post before page 2 about alcohol issues, and Prohibition, as if to conflate the two.

I might be tempted to treat drug users like lepers, off to inescapable confinement, but there are perhaps due process issues to deal with.

Any other choices?

I am perhaps somewhere between you and Rand Paul. I don't think it should be either a legal issue or a healthcare issue. Let it be a Darwin issue. I know my view would never get popular support but I simply don't care if people want to kill themselves with drugs, alcohol or a rusty spoon for that matter. We spend far too much attempting to rescue people from themselves and in the process prop them up long enough to spawn and pass along their deficient genes and abhorrent behaviors. A little libertarianism here could be the chlorine in the gene pool we desperately need.

quote:

Originally posted by TXJIM:
I am perhaps somewhere between you and Rand Paul. I don't think it should be either a legal issue or a healthcare issue. Let it be a Darwin issue. I know my view would never get popular support but I simply don't care if people want to kill themselves with drugs, alcohol or a rusty spoon for that matter. We spend far too much attempting to rescue people from themselves and in the process prop them up long enough to spawn and pass along their deficient genes and abhorrent behaviors. A little libertarianism here could be the chlorine in the gene pool we desperately need.

I am often a survival of the fittest leaning guy myself, but if these whacked out goons were to wipe out my granddaughters, I'm not going to be very happy.

There are seldom solutions that are absolute, either way. The trick is coming up with the "best" balance.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by TXJIM:
I am perhaps somewhere between you and Rand Paul. I don't think it should be either a legal issue or a healthcare issue. Let it be a Darwin issue. I know my view would never get popular support but I simply don't care if people want to kill themselves with drugs, alcohol or a rusty spoon for that matter. We spend far too much attempting to rescue people from themselves and in the process prop them up long enough to spawn and pass along their deficient genes and abhorrent behaviors. A little libertarianism here could be the chlorine in the gene pool we desperately need.

I am often a survival of the fittest leaning guy myself, but if these whacked out goons were to wipe out my granddaughters, I'm not going to be very happy.

There are seldom solutions that are absolute, either way. The trick is coming up with the "best" balance.

Having been a whacked out goon myself from age 15 to 25, quite literally doing it all, I don't share your concern. I am now in my mid 40s with 2 boys of my own so I have similar skin in the game. The notion that being on drugs alone changes ones propensity to do violence is misguided. The vast majority of addicts that I have known were much more content to be comfortably numb in a safe place.

Or perhaps the War on Drugs, as fought to-date, has been effective relative to the restrictions under which it has been waged? How much worse would life be today without the fight? Would it have been a positive thing to have forgone the efforts of good and decent LEOs trying to prevent heroin, meth, cocaine, etc., from becoming even more readily accessible than they already are?

quote:

Originally posted by TXJIM:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by TXJIM:
I am perhaps somewhere between you and Rand Paul. I don't think it should be either a legal issue or a healthcare issue. Let it be a Darwin issue. I know my view would never get popular support but I simply don't care if people want to kill themselves with drugs, alcohol or a rusty spoon for that matter. We spend far too much attempting to rescue people from themselves and in the process prop them up long enough to spawn and pass along their deficient genes and abhorrent behaviors. A little libertarianism here could be the chlorine in the gene pool we desperately need.

I am often a survival of the fittest leaning guy myself, but if these whacked out goons were to wipe out my granddaughters, I'm not going to be very happy.

There are seldom solutions that are absolute, either way. The trick is coming up with the "best" balance.

Having been a whacked out goon myself from age 15 to 25, quite literally doing it all, I don't share your concern. I am now in my mid 40s with 2 boys of my own so I have similar skin in the game. The notion that being on drugs alone changes ones propensity to do violence is misguided. The vast majority of addicts that I have known were much more content to be comfortably numb in a safe place.

I'm not talking to intentional violence necessarily, but the consequences of not being in full possession of one's faculties, however minimal they might naturally be.

quote:

Originally posted by TXJIM:
Having been a whacked out goon myself from age 15 to 25, quite literally doing it all, I don't share your concern. I am now in my mid 40s with 2 boys of my own so I have similar skin in the game. The notion that being on drugs alone changes ones propensity to do violence is misguided. The vast majority of addicts that I have known were much more content to be comfortably numb in a safe place.

If it were a world where it was just happy go-lucky addicts who received their drugs from a benevolent unicorn and only got stoned in their safe place without being a drain on society, sure. But you, at least because of having been a prior user of illegal drugs if not for being an aware citizen, know very well that addicts will do anything to get their next fix, high, or whatever the going term is these days. Then add in the pushers, distributors, and the rest of the violent supply-chain of illicit substances and, yeah, JAllen and others have a valid concern for their safety and that of their family and friends. That these points are not yet an already understood and undeniable aspect of the debate is incomprehensible to me.

Your premise assumes a significant increase in use. I assure you that anyone who really want to get high today is high.

quote:

Originally posted by marksman41:

quote:

Originally posted by TXJIM:
Having been a whacked out goon myself from age 15 to 25, quite literally doing it all, I don't share your concern. I am now in my mid 40s with 2 boys of my own so I have similar skin in the game. The notion that being on drugs alone changes ones propensity to do violence is misguided. The vast majority of addicts that I have known were much more content to be comfortably numb in a safe place.

If it were a world where it was just happy go-lucky addicts who received their drugs from a benevolent unicorn and only got stoned in their safe place without being a drain on society, sure. But you, at least because of having been a prior user of illegal drugs if not for being an aware citizen, know very well that addicts will do anything to get their next fix, high, or whatever the going term is these days. Then add in the pushers, distributors, and the rest of the violent supply-chain of illicit substances and, yeah, JAllen and others have a valid concern for their safety and that of their family and friends. That these points are not yet an already understood and undeniable aspect of the debate is incomprehensible to me.

The only time there was a violent syndicate around the production, distribution and consumption of Alcohol was during prohibition. If drugs were legal, would any of what you point out be an Issue? The local 7-11 is the magical unicorn for drunks where a fix can be had for a few dollars or less. If cocaine didn't cost $100 a gram and come from a violent cartel most of what you point out goes away.....

Till the laws are changed, they should be enforced. I have no problem with Sessions resetting Obama-era policies weakening the law.

quote:

... Holder's policies, which directed prosecutors not to disclose the quantity of drugs to courts ....

"Chief Law Enforcement Officer" indeed.

quote:

Originally posted by TXJIM:
Your premise assumes a significant increase in use. I assure you that anyone who really want to get high today is high.

I do not so assume, although that has been the trend during my lifetime, more and more drug use, reflecting the race to the gutter of our culture.

This doubtless contributes of the erosion of values, intelligence, and responsibility of the citizenry that has prevailed for decades, and seems to be accelerating.

quote:

Originally posted by marksman41:
Or perhaps the War on Drugs, as fought to-date, has been effective relative to the restrictions under which it has been waged? How much worse would life be today without the fight? Would it have been a positive thing to have forgone the efforts of good and decent LEOs trying to prevent heroin, meth, cocaine, etc., from becoming even more readily accessible than they already are?

The hard and dangerous work of good men and women is not in question. The effectiveness of that work is most definitely. I don't know that things would be any better or worse. I doubt very many people that wanted to get stoned settled for being sober through their efforts. They stopped ounces while tons flowed by....they arrested dozens only to have a dozens more fill their shoes. Fighting a losing was is no slight against the soldier, it's a leadership issue that chose to wage a war that can't be won.

quote:

Originally posted by TXJIM:

quote:

Originally posted by marksman41:
Or perhaps the War on Drugs, as fought to-date, has been effective relative to the restrictions under which it has been waged? How much worse would life be today without the fight? Would it have been a positive thing to have forgone the efforts of good and decent LEOs trying to prevent heroin, meth, cocaine, etc., from becoming even more readily accessible than they already are?

The hard and dangerous work of good men and women is not in question. The effectiveness of that work is most definitely. I don't know that things would be any better or worse. I doubt very many people that wanted to get stoned settled for being sober through their efforts. They stopped ounces while tons flowed by....they arrested dozens only to have a dozens more fill their shoes. Fighting a losing was is no slight against the soldier, it's a leadership issue that chose to wage a war that can't be won.

But has left no choice but to fight as best we can, or sit around watching western Christian democratic civilization swirl down the drain.