While victory laps......

Eric wrote:

Quote :

Tough on crime – in 1994 she supported mass incarceration and more prisons – now she has flip flopped to ending mass incarceration

Strange combination of words... mass incarceration.  What does that pertain to?

---

---

I'm fixing to jump on the soapbox here... again.

The New York Times says that the USA has less than 5% of the world's population and almost a quarter of the world's prisoners.  That's more prisoners per 100,000 population than any other country.

We would have plenty of room in our prisons if we ended the War on Drugs.  Here is a breakdown of our prison population from our Bureau of Prisons.

Mass incarceration.....term used to criticize the 1994 Crime Bill signed by President Clinton...part of which was that offenders would be required to serve 85% of their sentences and more money was earmarked for more prisons....This legislation was tied to a statistical spike of incarcerations especially of black offenders...thus the battlecry became this was nothing more than laws allowing more blacks to be incarcerated....This bill also led to the creation of the 'three strikes' laws and also was billed as more cops on the streets which provided grants for communities to hire more law enforcement officers...

Before anyone gets their drawers in a knot....this wasn't a criticism or blaming of President Clinton--the Crime Bill was a bipartisan effort...Stats would also show that violent crime rates were reduced...go figure.... criminals actually arrested/charged/prosecuted/and sentenced and they were required to serve 85% of their sentence....

Jake92 wrote:

How many of the drug offenders had weapons and were arrested multiple times and released early for good behavior?  How many of the drug offenses are related for multiple DUIs with deaths or injuries?  DUI's are not just alcohol related..  How many of the immigration crimes were related to the sex and weapons crimes?

My point, Jake, is that you wouldn't have drug offenses if we ended the war on drugs.  Organized crime wouldn't get funded if citizens could purchase legal, taxed drugs.  As a result, gang bangers wouldn't have drug profits to fund their recruiting activities and no profitable turf would be there to defend (effectively ending drive-by shootings and killing of innocent bystanders).  Prisons wouldn't have to let prisoners out early if they weren't overcrowded with drug offenders.  Cartels in Mexico wouldn't be torturing and killing thousands of people a year if their profits dried up.

The "War on Drugs" creates a Perfect Storm... It creates an illicit market that feeds organized crime, just like alcohol prohibition did in the 1920's.  The war on drugs is insanity and, after spending a TRILLION dollars, it is an obvious failure.

I didn't make that chart, Jake.  I used a government source for the chart.  I don't have figures on the breakdowns.  You might could look them up if you so desire.

I agree with you Eric, but WHO is the person that decides what drug is legal, where they can be bought, and what age is legal to buy it? Would the addicts be breaking into Wal Marts or other stores in the middle of the night so they could steal their legal drug of choice? I have wanted pot legalized and taxed like tobacco and alcohol for at least 40 years.. How about letting people grow their own pot for their use, but not for resale? Remember, the govt wants the tax money...................

I wonder how many of the pot shops in Washington and Colorado have been broken into for the pot or the money..

Jake92 wrote:

I agree with you Eric, but WHO is the person that decides what drug is legal, where they can be bought, and what age is legal to buy it?  Would the addicts be breaking into Wal Marts or other stores in the middle of the night so they could steal their legal drug of choice?  I have wanted pot legalized and taxed like tobacco and alcohol for at least 40 years..  How about letting people grow their own pot for their use, but not for resale?  Remember, the govt wants the tax money...................

I wonder how many of the pot shops in Washington and Colorado have been broken into for the pot or the money..

Good points....would that then force the illegal cartels to become more violent to gain control and/or would it start a drug price war...guess that would be good for those on the demand side.....Agree about the decriminalization of marijuana and why even have the government involved?...If it's sold like other plants/seed products then the consumer would buy what they wanted for personal use...But sadly this still leaves the heroin and cosmetic drug wide open and possibly these problems would further expand...It's a horrible cycle...

All prohibition is wrong... we must realize that some people simply choose to fail. Whether it's drinking themselves to death, eating themselves to death, even being too lazy to provide for themselves. Before I'm considered heartless and cruel... I'm not including the truly and verifiably disabled or those that paid into programs like ss or medicare. Now there can certainly be private restrictions... for example employment conditions or activities that could harm others like driving. But part of liberty is the right to fail... and it must be protected as aggressively as equal protection and opportunity should be.

I agree with MW and Pkr, but what is the penalty for crimes committed against innocent people ie; someone high on legal drugs minding their own business that loses control of a car and runs into a school bus killing the driver and 48 little kids, one of whom is your child or grand child? What if YOU are the driver high on drugs that causes an accident resulting in injury or death? Who's responsible for the 12 yr old that died of an overdose of a narcotic such as morphine that belongs to his friends mommy or daddy? What if YOU are the one that had the morphine and your child gave it to a friend that overdosed and died?

I agree 100% on employment restrictions or conditions.. I wouldn't want to be flying in an airliner with a pilot high on drugs, just like I wouldn't want to be in the military fighting a war with others that are high on drugs..

Jake, I think you are fretting about nothing. States like Colorado already have thought out most of those considerations and is fine tuning them as they encounter sensible solutions, such as not making edible gummies that are similar to candy gummy bears.

Just like DUI, you cannot drive while intoxicated with any other substance. Nothing really changes. There won't be a sudden rash of drug-crazed zombies out there crashing airliners, trains, and busses. (See the Portugal example below.) Businesses already have the authority to police and test for drug use amongst their employees. Parents are responsible for their actions, whether it be leaving a handgun unattended in a home with children, or whether it be illegal drugs or legal drugs that are accessed by children. Reasonable care must be applied in cases where drugs are involved.

Portugal has decriminalized all drug use and possession of small amounts and opted for treatment programs instead of costly arrest/prosecution/incarceration. Not legalization, mind you, but making it a civil penalty, instead of a criminal penalty. Here is part of an article in Newsweek:

Quote :

The data show that, judged by virtually every metric, the Portuguese decriminalization framework has been a resounding success. Within this success lie self-evident lessons that should guide drug policy debates around the world.

None of the fears promulgated by opponents of Portuguese decriminalization has come to fruition, whereas many of the benefits predicted by drug policymakers from instituting a decriminalization regime have been realized.

While drug addiction, usage, and associated pathologies continue to skyrocket in many EU states, those problems—in virtually every relevant category—have been either contained or measurably improved within Portugal since 2001. In certain key demographic segments, drug usage has decreased in absolute terms in the decriminalization framework, even as usage across the EU continues to increase, including in those states that continue to take the hardest line in criminalizing drug possession and usage.

By freeing its citizens from the fear of prosecution and imprisonment for drug usage, Portugal has dramatically improved its ability to encourage drug addicts to avail themselves of treatment. The resources that were previously devoted to prosecuting and imprisoning drug addicts are now available to provide treatment programs to addicts.

Those developments, along with Portugal’s shift to a harm-reduction approach, have dramatically improved drug-related social ills, including drug-caused mortalities and drug-related disease transmission. Ideally, treatment programs would be strictly voluntary, but Portugal’s program is certainly preferable to criminalization.

mediawatcher wrote:

    Good points....would that then force the illegal cartels to become more violent to gain control and/or would it start a drug price war...guess that would be good for those on the demand side.....Agree about the decriminalization of marijuana and why even have the government involved?...If it's sold like other plants/seed products then the consumer would buy what they wanted for personal use...But sadly this still leaves the heroin and cosmetic drug wide open and possibly these problems would further expand...It's a horrible cycle...

MW, I don't think the Cartels would exist if their market dried up.  Everything they do is costly and it takes a lot of cash flow to enable their operations.  The tunnels, funding of human "mules", go-fast boats, drug submarines, airplanes, etc. all cost a LOT of money.  A price war?  I don't think that would happen, but I guess it is possible.

Why even have the government involved?  Well, alcohol regulation seems to work and a certain amount of oversight in places like Colorado and Oregon don't seem unreasonable.  Taxes are a benefit and can help defray costs of regulation and addict treatment.

Heroin and cosmetic drug use?  Like Portugal, decriminalize their use and make penalties civil instead and offer treatment programs instead of arrests/prosecutions/incarceration.  Or, legalize the drugs and offer treatment and hold designer drug manufacturers and sellers liable for damages caused by their products.  I don't think you would have so much experimentation with designer drugs if other legal drugs could be obtained from a regulated source.  

Much of the heroin addiction nowadays is blamed on prescription drugs being so hard to obtain for addicts and bona fide pain sufferers. But that's probably something best discussed on a different thread, since it isn't really about legalization.

[quote="Eric"]Jake, I think you are fretting about nothing.  

Just trying to put the questions out for solutions BEFORE the problems happen.. Sort of like locking you doors before your car gets stolen or someone breaks into your house and robs everything in your house.. Using prevention is much cheaper and safer than not using it.. Just look at all of the births from unprotected sex that could have been prevented with a little foresight and a few dollars..

Jake92 wrote:

Eric wrote:

Jake, I think you are fretting about nothing.  

Just trying to put the questions out for solutions BEFORE the problems happen..  Sort of like locking you doors before your car gets stolen or someone breaks into your house and robs everything in your house..  Using prevention is much cheaper and safer than not using it..  Just look at all of the births from unprotected sex that could have been prevented with a little foresight and a few dollars..  

Nice....too bad that wasn't applied to [name] cowh healthcare....just vote for it and then we'll figure out what's inside...just legalize and then we'll figure it out as we go along....shouldn't or don't we learn?....

So, y'all think we just need to throw another trillion of your dollars at the War on Drugs... good money after bad? We already have areas where drugs have been decriminalized and legalized and it seems to work... or do we just ignore that?

I sure don't... but like I said before... no govt intervention or solution for those that fail.

mediawatcher wrote:

nochain wrote:

Obummer ha$ no plan for dealing with terrorist$, he'$ treading water until he can e$cape the WH and $tart making the BIG BUCK$.

   Of course he does.....baseball in Cuba....doing the wave with Castro....dancing...and telling students in Argentina that there's not that big of a difference between capitalism and socialism...pick whichever one is best for you....he said he was going to change America......

Lest we forget that Lame Duck President Obama also promised, during one of his last speeches before the election that the SEAS WERE GOING TO RECEDE.

mediawatcher wrote:

Eric wrote:

Quote :

Tough on crime – in 1994 she supported mass incarceration and more prisons – now she has flip flopped to ending mass incarceration

Strange combination of words... mass incarceration.  What does that pertain to?

---

---

I'm fixing to jump on the soapbox here... again.

The New York Times says that the USA has less than 5% of the world's population and almost a quarter of the world's prisoners.  That's more prisoners per 100,000 population than any other country.

We would have plenty of room in our prisons if we ended the War on Drugs.  Here is a breakdown of our prison population from our Bureau of Prisons.

    Mass incarceration.....term used to criticize the 1994 Crime Bill signed by President Clinton...part of which was that offenders would be required to serve 85% of their sentences and more money was earmarked for more prisons....This legislation was tied to a statistical  spike of incarcerations especially of black offenders...thus the battlecry became this was nothing more than laws allowing more blacks to be incarcerated....This bill also led to the creation of the 'three strikes' laws and also was billed as more cops on the streets which provided grants for communities to hire more law enforcement officers...

    Before anyone gets their drawers in a knot....this wasn't a criticism or blaming of President Clinton--the Crime Bill was a bipartisan effort...Stats would also show that violent crime rates were reduced...go figure.... criminals actually arrested/charged/prosecuted/and sentenced and they were required to serve 85% of their sentence....

Those in prison due to drug "offenses" are NOT simple users. They are offered Drug Court whereby they can erase their arrest record. Those in prison are guilty of DEALING these poisons, many times to children.

Please show us rate of increase in violent crimes since the 1994 Crime Bill was passed into law.

Do you believe that habitual criminals should be turned loose on the innocent citizens?

I don't agree with the felons that obama is releasing with mitigating factors... such as several that were already felons in possession of firearms (surprising that he did this)... or previous violent crimes and habitual criminals. I could understand the first time offenders... particularly those with smaller amounts and just pot. I also never understood why crack cocaine had more severe guidelines than powder... that reeked (pardon the pun... lol) of racism.

Btw... welcome markle. I'm sorry that you were treated so unfairly by boards.

Eric wrote:

So, y'all think we just need to throw another trillion of your dollars at the War on Drugs... good money after bad?  We already have areas where drugs have been decriminalized and legalized and it seems to work... or do we just ignore that?

Asking questions about which drugs...which offenses..and how the best way to handle legalization or decriminalizing certainly doesn't sound like anyone is wanting to continue to throw more money into the bottomless pit....Perhaps in areas where this has happened there are good ideas that certainly could or should result into looking into...a large concern would be to see if there had been an increase in say driving under the influence...increase in crime....impact in the workplace...should this be a national policy that penalties etc., are the same rather than state to state?..Unlike what happened with healthcare perhaps questions and opinions should be sought rather than ramming in through...

Markle wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

Eric wrote:

Quote :

Tough on crime – in 1994 she supported mass incarceration and more prisons – now she has flip flopped to ending mass incarceration

Strange combination of words... mass incarceration.  What does that pertain to?

---

---

I'm fixing to jump on the soapbox here... again.

The New York Times says that the USA has less than 5% of the world's population and almost a quarter of the world's prisoners.  That's more prisoners per 100,000 population than any other country.

We would have plenty of room in our prisons if we ended the War on Drugs.  Here is a breakdown of our prison population from our Bureau of Prisons.

    Mass incarceration.....term used to criticize the 1994 Crime Bill signed by President Clinton...part of which was that offenders would be required to serve 85% of their sentences and more money was earmarked for more prisons....This legislation was tied to a statistical  spike of incarcerations especially of black offenders...thus the battlecry became this was nothing more than laws allowing more blacks to be incarcerated....This bill also led to the creation of the 'three strikes' laws and also was billed as more cops on the streets which provided grants for communities to hire more law enforcement officers...

    Before anyone gets their drawers in a knot....this wasn't a criticism or blaming of President Clinton--the Crime Bill was a bipartisan effort...Stats would also show that violent crime rates were reduced...go figure.... criminals actually arrested/charged/prosecuted/and sentenced and they were required to serve 85% of their sentence....

Those in prison due to drug "offenses" are NOT simple users.  They are offered Drug Court whereby they can erase their arrest record.  Those in prison are guilty of DEALING these poisons, many times to children.

Please show us rate of increase in violent crimes since the 1994 Crime Bill was passed into law.

Do you believe that habitual criminals should be turned loose on the innocent citizens?

I agree..bernie owes hrc a huge apology for criticizing her for the 1994 Crime Bill and labeling her as supporting something that was racially motivated or racist...sanders knows that's not the case and hrc proved herself to be weak and pandering by 'apologizing' for what was a decent bill that attacked a problem at several levels and did decrease violent crimes....but when you're kissing the ass of the king of jackasses [sharpton] the truth isn't a high priority...To think there are no predators in the criminal element is ignorant and proves sanders lives his life in a bubble and hrc apologizing is weakness...

PkrBum wrote:

I don't agree with the felons that obama is releasing with mitigating factors... such as several that were already felons in possession of firearms (surprising that he did this)... or previous violent crimes and habitual criminals. I could understand the first time offenders... particularly those with smaller amounts and just pot. I also never understood why crack cocaine had more severe guidelines than powder... that reeked (pardon the pun... lol) of racism.

Btw... welcome markle. I'm sorry that you were treated so unfairly by boards.

One in particular was released...stabbed/killed his girlfriend and their three year old baby girl....

PkrBum wrote:

I don't agree with the felons that obama is releasing with mitigating factors... such as several that were already felons in possession of firearms (surprising that he did this)... or previous violent crimes and habitual criminals. I could understand the first time offenders... particularly those with smaller amounts and just pot. I also never understood why crack cocaine had more severe guidelines than powder... that reeked (pardon the pun... lol) of racism.

Btw... welcome markle. I'm sorry that you were treated so unfairly by boards.

Thank you. BoardsofFL made it clear quite some time back that he was going to get rid of me one way or another. His problem not mine. It must have REALLY got to him when Wordslinger, put up the poll to bring me back and I won overwhelmingly. From there I'm sure he worked hard to line up ANOTHER poll he thought I could not win. When that one turned against him, that just threw him off his rails and he just tossed his own rules and promises and just banned me. His loss, not mine.

The differences on sentencing has been corrected. Offenders with small amounts of drugs are sent to Drug Court, started in Florida and now all over thee country.

As you said, releasing some of those felons was just stupid. Not unlike his releasing the worst of the worst from GITMO. Even giving Lame Duck President Obama the benefit of the doubt, it's hard to figure out which side he is on.

Markle wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

I don't agree with the felons that obama is releasing with mitigating factors... such as several that were already felons in possession of firearms (surprising that he did this)... or previous violent crimes and habitual criminals. I could understand the first time offenders... particularly those with smaller amounts and just pot. I also never understood why crack cocaine had more severe guidelines than powder... that reeked (pardon the pun... lol) of racism.

Btw... welcome markle. I'm sorry that you were treated so unfairly by boards.

Thank you.  BoardsofFL made it clear quite some time back that he was going to get rid of me one way or another.  His problem not mine.  It must have REALLY got to him when Wordslinger, put up the poll to bring me back and I won overwhelmingly.  From there I'm sure he worked hard to line up ANOTHER poll he thought I could not win.  When that one turned against him, that just threw him off his rails and he just tossed his own rules and promises and just banned me.  His loss, not mine.

The differences on sentencing has been corrected.  Offenders with small amounts of drugs are sent to Drug Court, started in Florida and now all over thee country.

As you said, releasing some of those felons was just stupid.  Not unlike his releasing the worst of the worst from GITMO.  Even giving Lame Duck President Obama the benefit of the doubt, it's hard to figure out which side he is on.  

Think we know what side he's on...just look at his dismal record..