SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Sessions orders tougher sentences in DOJ memo
Page 1 2 3 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Sessions orders tougher sentences in DOJ memo Login/Join 
Funny Man
Picture of TXJIM
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by JALLEN:
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.


Perhaps it is accelerating because, as I stated before, ".... rescue people from themselves and in the process prop them up long enough to spawn and pass along their deficient genes and abhorrent behaviors."


______________________________
“I'd like to know why well-educated idiots keep apologizing for lazy and complaining people who think the world owes them a living.”
― John Wayne
 
Posts: 7093 | Location: Austin, TX | Registered: June 29, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
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.


That is why I wrote "relative to the restrictions under which it has been waged". With proper leadership and appropriate ROE, any effort in any endeavor will be more effective. It's well known how wasteful the government is across the board, so how much improvement in the battle would there be if the war on drugs was run competently and with greater efficiency? Nobody knows, but I'd like to see us work towards that goal because legalizing, to me, is akin to giving up.

As to your argument using Prohibition as a justification to legalize drugs, there's more to it than that. It's a road traveled every time this subject comes up and the pro-legalize group always point out that there aren't any studies of acquired addiction comparisons, etc., to back up any personal observations or experiences so any such instances are void because they're anectodal. Their (pro-legalize) views matter because they are/were users and they never did or witnessed anything bad with drugs so it's all good, while the experiences from the other side don't count because the damage and rate of decay we've seen drugs cause is an anomaly. I know, I know,... "but, but alcohol..."

The best that a pro-legalize person and I can hope for is to cancel out each other's vote because I'm not giving up.




 
Posts: 4997 | Location: Arkansas | Registered: September 04, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Funny Man
Picture of TXJIM
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by marksman41:
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.


That is why I wrote "relative to the restrictions under which it has been waged". With proper leadership and appropriate ROE, any effort in any endeavor will be more effective. It's well known how wasteful the government is across the board, so how much improvement in the battle would there be if the war on drugs was run competently and with greater efficiency? Nobody knows, but I'd like to see us work towards that goal because legalizing, to me, is akin to giving up.

As to your argument using Prohibition as a justification to legalize drugs, there's more to it than that. It's a road traveled every time this subject comes up and the pro-legalize group always point out that there aren't any studies of acquired addiction comparisons, etc., to back up any personal observations or experiences so any such instances are void because they're anectodal. Their (pro-legalize) views matter because they are/were users and they never did or witnessed anything bad with drugs so it's all good, while the experiences from the other side don't count because the damage and rate of decay we've seen drugs cause is an anomaly. I know, I know,... "but, but alcohol..."

The best that a pro-legalize person and I can hope for is to cancel out each other's vote because I'm not giving up.


I have seen plenty of bad things happen. I just see futility is trying to stop them. I don't care to save people from themselves. My only comparison to alcohol was the result of prohibition on the criminal elements associated with distribution and production. I don't care to argue alcohol vs drugs in terms of addiction, it's irrelevant. Let them kill themselves or learn from their trials.


______________________________
“I'd like to know why well-educated idiots keep apologizing for lazy and complaining people who think the world owes them a living.”
― John Wayne
 
Posts: 7093 | Location: Austin, TX | Registered: June 29, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Oh stewardess,
I speak jive.
Picture of 46and2
posted Hide Post
The so-called war on drugs has gone on for decades, across multiple administrations, through Congresses and AGs of each and every political and philosophical variety, and yet it remains an abject failure, particularly each and every part related to prohibition and any notion that it does much of value to abate the demand, supply, or widespread use.

Ideas such as excusing its long history of failures as being a result of just not having tough enough ROEs or a strong enough AG or President are as hilariously silly as the war itself.

I don't have all of the answers, but a blind squirrel can see that the current (and a myriad of past similar approaches) don't work, won't work, can't work, and are futile absurdities.
 
Posts: 25613 | Registered: March 12, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Funny Man
Picture of TXJIM
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by 46and2:
The so-called war on drugs has gone on for decades, across multiple administrations, through Congresses and AGs of each and every political and philosophical variety, and yet it remains an abject failure, particularly each and every part related to prohibition and any notion that it does much of value to abate the demand, supply, or widespread use.

Ideas such as excusing its long history of failures as being a result of just not having tough enough ROEs or a strong enough AG or President are as hilariously silly as the war itself.

I don't have all of the answers, but a blind squirrel can see that the current (and a myriad of past similar approaches) don't work, won't work, can't work, and are futile absurdities.



Exactly, if we can't keep drugs out of a maximum security prison, how in the hell is any amount of money going to keep drugs off the open streets of a free society?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...ng-drugs-behind-bars


______________________________
“I'd like to know why well-educated idiots keep apologizing for lazy and complaining people who think the world owes them a living.”
― John Wayne
 
Posts: 7093 | Location: Austin, TX | Registered: June 29, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I believe in the
principle of
Due Process
Picture of JALLEN
posted Hide Post
OTOH, maybe because of the enforcement effort, the problem is not nearly as bad as it would be with no or little enforcement.

The perfect is the enemy of the good, but good is the goal of the so-so and none at all.




Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.

When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson

"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown
 
Posts: 48369 | Location: Texas hill country | Registered: July 04, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Funny Man
Picture of TXJIM
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by JALLEN:
OTOH, maybe because of the enforcement effort, the problem is not nearly as bad as it would be with no or little enforcement.

The perfect is the enemy of the good, but good is the goal of the so-so and none at all.



Are we talking about drug use/addiction or crime?


______________________________
“I'd like to know why well-educated idiots keep apologizing for lazy and complaining people who think the world owes them a living.”
― John Wayne
 
Posts: 7093 | Location: Austin, TX | Registered: June 29, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Internet Guru
posted Hide Post
I really hope Jeff Sessions is kept on his leash. Tougher sentencing for drug offenses isn't really a priority for many folks.
 
Posts: 1989 | Registered: April 06, 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Freethinker
Picture of sigfreund
posted Hide Post
Ahem ….

Just as the director of the FBI doesn’t really have the authority to tell the Attorney General when to pursue or not pursue criminal charges against someone who, for example, mishandled classified defense information, the Attorney General doesn’t—as far as I know—have the authority to order the courts to impose tougher sentences. What he’s ordering may result in tougher sentences by virtue of the laws of the land that were enacted by our legislative representatives, but it’s still up to the courts to make the final decisions, I believe.




6.4/93.6
 
Posts: 47454 | Location: 10,150 Feet Above Sea Level in Colorado | Registered: April 04, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I believe in the
principle of
Due Process
Picture of JALLEN
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by TXJIM:
quote:
Originally posted by JALLEN:
OTOH, maybe because of the enforcement effort, the problem is not nearly as bad as it would be with no or little enforcement.

The perfect is the enemy of the good, but good is the goal of the so-so and none at all.



Are we talking about drug use/addiction or crime?


I thought drug use/addiction is a crime, along with distribution, manufacture, etc.

Sigfreund is correct that sentences are decided and imposed by the court. There are mandatory minimums, sentencing guidelines and prosecutorial recommendations, and a host of defense factors go into it.

As I understood the AGs directive, it has to do with charging decisions mostly. Mandatory minimums are statutory, but charging games can be played to affect the outcomes.




Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.

When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson

"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown
 
Posts: 48369 | Location: Texas hill country | Registered: July 04, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by TXJIM:
I don't care to argue alcohol vs drugs in terms of addiction, it's irrelevant. Let them kill themselves or learn from their trials.


I wholeheartedly agree with you on this.

My apologies if I came across as attacking you personally. That was not my intent.




 
Posts: 4997 | Location: Arkansas | Registered: September 04, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of downtownv
posted Hide Post
The one that grind my ass is this punks getting the gun charges dropped...
Like felony gun possession
stolen firearm
possession committing a crime with a firearm
Almost always plea bargained out!


_________________________

https://www.teampython.com


 
Posts: 8436 | Location: 18 miles long, 6 Miles at Sea | Registered: January 22, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Devil's Advocate
Picture of Holger Danske
posted Hide Post
I guess I take a different view of this issue: that the partakers of illegal substances who are the spawn of the wealthy and connected are far less likely to be put into the legal system from the get go -- and so aren't subject to the "tougher sentences."

When James Herbert Walker Foliage gets busted with weed on the way home from the Hamptons compound, be assured he's treated differently than when j'quia brown gets popped banging around the hood.

I have seen countless incidents of privilege taking care of its own. And because it doesn't even get the to arrest stage, much less court and sentencing stage (or the sons and daughters of privilege are selected for "diversion") of course all these Conservatives can be all righteous about the evil drug doers . . . even as their children are toking amd coking and laughing at the pool on their estate.


________
Homo sum: humani nil a me alienum puto
 
Posts: 1080 | Location: Baton Rouge | Registered: March 16, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of downtownv
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by 46and2:
The so-called war on drugs has gone on for decades, across multiple administrations, through Congresses and AGs of each and every political and philosophical variety, and yet it remains an abject failure, particularly each and every part related to prohibition and any notion that it does much of value to abate the demand, supply, or widespread use.

Ideas such as excusing its long history of failures as being a result of just not having tough enough ROEs or a strong enough AG or President are as hilariously silly as the war itself.

I don't have all of the answers, but a blind squirrel can see that the current (and a myriad of past similar approaches) don't work, won't work, can't work, and are futile absurdities.


Way tooo much money being made by way too many people!
from the Narco to traffickers, dirty customs people. Lawyers, judges and cops all benefit in trials, overtime surveillance and overtime testifying.
Who in that chain wants to walk away from all the avenue it generates?


_________________________

https://www.teampython.com


 
Posts: 8436 | Location: 18 miles long, 6 Miles at Sea | Registered: January 22, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Funny Man
Picture of TXJIM
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by marksman41:
quote:
Originally posted by TXJIM:
I don't care to argue alcohol vs drugs in terms of addiction, it's irrelevant. Let them kill themselves or learn from their trials.


I wholeheartedly agree with you on this.

My apologies if I came across as attacking you personally. That was not my intent.


I didn't take anything you stated as an attack on me. I simply saw that we were putting forth our arguments on an issue, nothing more.


______________________________
“I'd like to know why well-educated idiots keep apologizing for lazy and complaining people who think the world owes them a living.”
― John Wayne
 
Posts: 7093 | Location: Austin, TX | Registered: June 29, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Funny Man
Picture of TXJIM
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by JALLEN:
quote:
Originally posted by TXJIM:
quote:
Originally posted by JALLEN:
OTOH, maybe because of the enforcement effort, the problem is not nearly as bad as it would be with no or little enforcement.

The perfect is the enemy of the good, but good is the goal of the so-so and none at all.



Are we talking about drug use/addiction or crime?


I thought drug use/addiction is a crime, along with distribution, manufacture, etc.

Sigfreund is correct that sentences are decided and imposed by the court. There are mandatory minimums, sentencing guidelines and prosecutorial recommendations, and a host of defense factors go into it.

As I understood the AGs directive, it has to do with charging decisions mostly. Mandatory minimums are statutory, but charging games can be played to affect the outcomes.


Yes use is a crime but I was curious which you thought was potentially reduced by the ongoing drug war, use or the crimes associated with distribution? I have seen estimates of 10-20% as to the drugs kept off the streets vs what gets to the end user (80%). I certainly don't think any demand is going unmet. So what potential benefit do you think the billions of dollars have realized?

If all drugs were made legal tomorrow and distribution turned over to Phillip Morris and Segrams, would crime increase or decrease in your estimation? If the 40 billion dollars annually spent in state and federal funds on interdiction were diverted to treatment prevention would there be less addicts or more. I don't know personally but why not give it a shot? There is no evidence that what we are doing now is working.


______________________________
“I'd like to know why well-educated idiots keep apologizing for lazy and complaining people who think the world owes them a living.”
― John Wayne
 
Posts: 7093 | Location: Austin, TX | Registered: June 29, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I believe in the
principle of
Due Process
Picture of JALLEN
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by TXJIM:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JALLEN:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TXJIM:


Yes use is a crime but I was curious which you thought was potentially reduced by the ongoing drug war, use or the crimes associated with distribution? I have seen estimates of 10-20% as to the drugs kept off the streets vs what gets to the end user (80%). I certainly don't think any demand is going unmet. So what potential benefit do you think the billions of dollars have realized?

If all drugs were made legal tomorrow and distribution turned over to Phillip Morris and Segrams, would crime increase or decrease in your estimation? If the 40 billion dollars annually spent in state and federal funds on interdiction were diverted to treatment prevention would there be less addicts or more. I don't know personally but why not give it a shot? There is no evidence that what we are doing now is working.


I'm not sure that is a useful analysis.

You can reduce the crime rate to zero for all crime merely by rescinding the criminal codes in toto, and the enforcement budget too. I doubt our culture would be improved by those statistical measures.




Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.

When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson

"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown
 
Posts: 48369 | Location: Texas hill country | Registered: July 04, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Funny Man
Picture of TXJIM
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by JALLEN:
quote:
Originally posted by TXJIM:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JALLEN:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TXJIM:


Yes use is a crime but I was curious which you thought was potentially reduced by the ongoing drug war, use or the crimes associated with distribution? I have seen estimates of 10-20% as to the drugs kept off the streets vs what gets to the end user (80%). I certainly don't think any demand is going unmet. So what potential benefit do you think the billions of dollars have realized?

If all drugs were made legal tomorrow and distribution turned over to Phillip Morris and Segrams, would crime increase or decrease in your estimation? If the 40 billion dollars annually spent in state and federal funds on interdiction were diverted to treatment prevention would there be less addicts or more. I don't know personally but why not give it a shot? There is no evidence that what we are doing now is working.


I'm not sure that is a useful analysis.

You can reduce the crime rate to zero for all crime merely by rescinding the criminal codes in toto, and the enforcement budget too. I doubt our culture would be improved by those statistical measures.


We are not talking about all crime. We are talking about crime directly linked to distribution of drugs. We have a measuring stick for the probably outcome, alcohol prohibition. It's really irrelevant to argue the relationship of Alcohol to drugs in terms of their effect on users but the effects of prohibition should be a direct correlation, no? Not a lot of bootleggers or speakeasys still in operation. The murders in Chicago are no longer be committed by guys named Capone.


______________________________
“I'd like to know why well-educated idiots keep apologizing for lazy and complaining people who think the world owes them a living.”
― John Wayne
 
Posts: 7093 | Location: Austin, TX | Registered: June 29, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I believe in the
principle of
Due Process
Picture of JALLEN
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by TXJIM:
quote:
Originally posted by JALLEN:
quote:
Originally posted by TXJIM:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JALLEN:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TXJIM:


Yes use is a crime but I was curious which you thought was potentially reduced by the ongoing drug war, use or the crimes associated with distribution? I have seen estimates of 10-20% as to the drugs kept off the streets vs what gets to the end user (80%). I certainly don't think any demand is going unmet. So what potential benefit do you think the billions of dollars have realized?

If all drugs were made legal tomorrow and distribution turned over to Phillip Morris and Segrams, would crime increase or decrease in your estimation? If the 40 billion dollars annually spent in state and federal funds on interdiction were diverted to treatment prevention would there be less addicts or more. I don't know personally but why not give it a shot? There is no evidence that what we are doing now is working.


I'm not sure that is a useful analysis.

You can reduce the crime rate to zero for all crime merely by rescinding the criminal codes in toto, and the enforcement budget too. I doubt our culture would be improved by those statistical measures.


We are not talking about all crime. We are talking about crime directly linked to distribution of drugs. We have a measuring stick for the probably outcome, alcohol prohibition. It's really irrelevant to argue the relationship of Alcohol to drugs in terms of their effect on users but the effects of prohibition should be a direct correlation, no? Not a lot of bootleggers or speakeasys still in operation. The murders in Chicago are no longer be committed by guys named Capone.


Sure we are. You say make an activity legal, let the activity be engaged in by whosoever wants to, and all our problems are over. Think of the savings, to law enforcement, prisons, the courts which can give their attention to civil disputes, reducing court calendar delays, etc.

I've not said a word about alcohol, or prohibition, other than to predict, mistakenly it turned out, that someone would try to conflate the two.

quote:
Someone will post before page 2 about alcohol issues, and Prohibition, as if to conflate the two.


We made it onto page 2 this time.




Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.

When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson

"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown
 
Posts: 48369 | Location: Texas hill country | Registered: July 04, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
The Main Thing Is
Not To Get Excited
Picture of wishfull thinker
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by JALLEN:
quote:
Originally posted by TXJIM:
quote:
Originally posted by JALLEN:
quote:
Originally posted by TXJIM:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JALLEN:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TXJIM:


Yes use is a crime but I was curious which you thought was potentially reduced by the ongoing drug war, use or the crimes associated with distribution? I have seen estimates of 10-20% as to the drugs kept off the streets vs what gets to the end user (80%). I certainly don't think any demand is going unmet. So what potential benefit do you think the billions of dollars have realized?

If all drugs were made legal tomorrow and distribution turned over to Phillip Morris and Segrams, would crime increase or decrease in your estimation? If the 40 billion dollars annually spent in state and federal funds on interdiction were diverted to treatment prevention would there be less addicts or more. I don't know personally but why not give it a shot? There is no evidence that what we are doing now is working.


I'm not sure that is a useful analysis.

You can reduce the crime rate to zero for all crime merely by rescinding the criminal codes in toto, and the enforcement budget too. I doubt our culture would be improved by those statistical measures.


We are not talking about all crime. We are talking about crime directly linked to distribution of drugs. We have a measuring stick for the probably outcome, alcohol prohibition. It's really irrelevant to argue the relationship of Alcohol to drugs in terms of their effect on users but the effects of prohibition should be a direct correlation, no? Not a lot of bootleggers or speakeasys still in operation. The murders in Chicago are no longer be committed by guys named Capone.


Sure we are. You say make an activity legal, let the activity be engaged in by whosoever wants to, and all our problems are over. Think of the savings, to law enforcement, prisons, the courts which can give their attention to civil disputes, reducing court calendar delays, etc.

I've not said a word about alcohol, or prohibition, other than to predict, mistakenly it turned out, that someone would try to conflate the two.

quote:
Someone will post before page 2 about alcohol issues, and Prohibition, as if to conflate the two.


We made it onto page 2 this time.


Big Grin


_______________________

 
Posts: 6426 | Location: Washington | Registered: November 06, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Sessions orders tougher sentences in DOJ memo

© SIGforum 2024