• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama shakes hands with Cuba's Castro in 'gesture of hope'

BlackAsCoal said:
I agree with you .. but we aren't Cubans with our nation under constant attack from the huge militaristic nation off our shores .. that has already attempted invasion, assassination, and overthrow .. and that has an infamous military lockup on our shores.

That might change our perspectives a bit.
Click to expand...

That was 50 years ago after Castro let Soviet missile's into Cuba and sent his advisors all over South America fomenting Communist revolutions.
 
US Conservative said:
Not competely. But surely its more legal now, than it was-we should see a decline in the incarceration rate. :roll:

We wont-because criminals just move into other areas of crime.
Click to expand...

Well until it is completely legal to use, possess, grow and sell your comparitive isn't a working comparitive.
 
poweRob said:
Well until it is completely legal to use, possess, grow and sell your comparitive isn't a working comparitive.
Click to expand...

Why because thats the line you have drawn? :roll:

If drug dealers aren't an issue, you know-because they are non violent, than as more and more of the marijuana supply is legalized (or conversely the illegal supply is diminished) we should see a decrease in marijuana convictions, and crime overall.

But we wont-we already know criminals simply move into other areas.
 
US Conservative said:
Why because thats the line you have drawn? :roll:

If drug dealers aren't an issue, you know-because they are non violent, than as more and more of the marijuana supply is legalized (or conversely the illegal supply is diminished) we should see a decrease in marijuana convictions, and crime overall.

But we wont-we already know criminals simply move into other areas.
Click to expand...

Helluv an assumption that a pot smoker is a criminal that will shun pot when legalized simply because he desires to break the law.
 
poweRob said:
If you grow it in your back yard and sell it to your friend, you are a dealer.
Click to expand...

So have your friend buy some of the soil and fertilizer, grow it in your back yard and GIVE it to your friend for nothing. Now what are they?
 
US Conservative said:
Unless you have a license to do so, and your friend can legally recieve it-yes.
Click to expand...

Still don't see your point.

You seem to be saying that it will have absolutely no effect on incarceration rates when pot is legalized. That's users and dealers and growers.
 
US Conservative said:
You respond by posing the same data THAT MEANS NOTHING ALONE. It not simply about a rise in the incarcerated population-im not debating that. :roll:

BTW the spike in both crime in the 80's, as well as the spike in incarceration correlates with the spike in gang violence and crack.

I dont want a guy convicted 3 separate times (each unanimously) for selling crack on the street-because if he is-there he is MOST LIKELY going to do the same. And a non-violent conviction DOES NOT MEAN he is not violent.

Here my question, with the large increase of non-violent felons in jail, we see a reduction in crime. Why is that?

One more question-if the "war on drugs" is lost, why isn't the "war on poverty"?
Click to expand...

I don't know what to tell you. The data is almost intuitive, doesn't need much explanation to anyone who has been paying attention.

"The presidency of Ronald Reagan marked the start of a long period of skyrocketing rates of incarceration, largely thanks to his unprecedented expansion of the drug war. The number of people behind bars for nonviolent drug law offenses increased from 50,000 in 1980 to over 400,000 by 1997.

---

The draconian policies enacted during the hysteria remained, however, and continued to result in escalating levels of arrests and incarceration. Although Bill Clinton advocated for treatment instead of incarceration during his 1992 presidential campaign, after his first few months in the White House he reverted to the drug war strategies of his Republican predecessors by continuing to escalate the drug war. Notoriously, Clinton rejected a U.S. Sentencing Commission recommendation to eliminate the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentences. He also rejected, with the encouragement of drug czar General Barry McCaffrey, health secretary Donna Shalala’s advice to end the federal ban on funding for syringe access programs. Yet, a month before leaving office, Clinton asserted in a Rolling Stone interview that "we really need a re-examination of our entire policy on imprisonment" of people who use drugs, and said that marijuana use "should be decriminalized."
A Brief History of the Drug War | Drug Policy Alliance

The notion that incarceration dramatically increased because of violent crime is false to the core. It increased because America started locking up legions of non-violent criminals for drugs.

That evidence is glaringly apparent.
 
Yes, he was also the author of big national debt and freeing mental patients from the social safety of the institution (which was better for themselves and the nation) and for the good things Reagan did, we'll pat him on the back for that, too.
 
Prisons are overcrowded due to incarceration for drug offenses, pure and simple. This article was big local news recently:

Most Wanted Car Theft Suspect Arrested By Fresno Police

This career criminal had been arrested several times already, of course, but let out each time due to overcrowding. Surprise, surprise, he didn't show up for court dates, imagine that!

So, the cops rented extra space specifically for car thieves, and kept him in custody.

Sgt. Tietjen says Luna has been stealing five to eight cars nightly for the past two months. Since the start of the year he's been arrested five times but released each time. This case is different. "He's gonna stay in jail in custody until he goes thru the process. We know that we will see a substantial decrease in auto thefts because he's in one of those beds."

The Fresno Police Department is currently renting five beds from the jail so accused car thieves can't get out for overcrowding. Sgt. Tietjen is ecstatic with the arrest because his task force hooked a big fish and also broke up a chop shop and recovered two stolen vehicles.

Luna faces charges of auto theft, running a chop shop and possession of illegal drugs.
Click to expand...

OMG! Possession of illegal drugs! That will get him a long sentence. Now, if only he'd simply pursued his car stealing career, he might have been out and running his chop shops in a few months.
 
Montecresto said:
Yes true. And even within the Democratic Party there has been acknowledgement that the material that Snowden has released hasn't threatened national security or given any terrorists a leg up. What it has done is exposed wrong doing on the part of the NSA, embarrassed them and put the agency in a defensive and damage control mode. And hopefully everyone concerned will help in their tiny or huge way, depending on who they are and what their access, power, influence etc. is, continue to put pressure (Jim Sensenbrenner) on those who alone have both the authority and means to align the NSA with the constitution, and not with corporate or whatever other interests there may be for having veered from that in the first place.
Click to expand...

This is probably the greatest social change in American history going on right now and it deserves a thread of its own. It should be the number one issue of the day.
 
poweRob said:
Like you, I have not a clue about anything regarding Raul. Don't know the guy at all.

Ralph nader
Howard Zinn
Bernie sanders
Elizabeth warren

I admire these leftists quite a bit.
Click to expand...

Ralph Nader had some good ideas, such as publicizing and making the public more aware of car safety, Elizabeth Warren is a fool, and I'm not that familiar with the other two. Perhaps they are the "hard leftists" who have inspired you.
 
BlackAsCoal said:
I don't know what to tell you. The data is almost intuitive, doesn't need much explanation to anyone who has been paying attention.

"The presidency of Ronald Reagan marked the start of a long period of skyrocketing rates of incarceration, largely thanks to his unprecedented expansion of the drug war. The number of people behind bars for nonviolent drug law offenses increased from 50,000 in 1980 to over 400,000 by 1997.

---

The draconian policies enacted during the hysteria remained, however, and continued to result in escalating levels of arrests and incarceration. Although Bill Clinton advocated for treatment instead of incarceration during his 1992 presidential campaign, after his first few months in the White House he reverted to the drug war strategies of his Republican predecessors by continuing to escalate the drug war. Notoriously, Clinton rejected a U.S. Sentencing Commission recommendation to eliminate the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentences. He also rejected, with the encouragement of drug czar General Barry McCaffrey, health secretary Donna Shalala’s advice to end the federal ban on funding for syringe access programs. Yet, a month before leaving office, Clinton asserted in a Rolling Stone interview that "we really need a re-examination of our entire policy on imprisonment" of people who use drugs, and said that marijuana use "should be decriminalized."
A Brief History of the Drug War | Drug Policy Alliance

The notion that incarceration dramatically increased because of violent crime is false to the core. It increased because America started locking up legions of non-violent criminals for drugs.

That evidence is glaringly apparent.
Click to expand...

Intuitive? I like it. Violent crime is down, especially since the early 1990's-how do you explain this? Hopefully its intuitive.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Prisons are overcrowded due to incarceration for drug offenses, pure and simple. This article was big local news recently:

Most Wanted Car Theft Suspect Arrested By Fresno Police

This career criminal had been arrested several times already, of course, but let out each time due to overcrowding. Surprise, surprise, he didn't show up for court dates, imagine that!

So, the cops rented extra space specifically for car thieves, and kept him in custody.



OMG! Possession of illegal drugs! That will get him a long sentence. Now, if only he'd simply pursued his car stealing career, he might have been out and running his chop shops in a few months.
Click to expand...

Relax, hes a "non violent" offender. What could go wrong?
 
US Conservative said:
Intuitive? I like it. Violent crime is down, especially since the early 1990's-how do you explain this? Hopefully its intuitive.
Click to expand...

:0) Let's start from here .. "The number of people behind bars for nonviolent drug law offenses increased from 50,000 in 1980 to over 400,000 by 1997."

Now let's talk about violent crime, which is different, and not the cause of the explosion of incarceration .. which is intuitive reading from your chart.

US crime rate at lowest point in decades. Why America is safer now. - CSMonitor.com
The crime rate for serious crimes, including murder, rape, and assault, has dropped significantly since the early 1990s in part because of changes in technology and policing, experts say.

... four main reasons for the decline:

. Increased incarceration, including longer sentences, that keeps more criminals off the streets.
. Improved law enforcement strategies, including advances in computer analysis and innovative technology.
. The waning of the crack cocaine epidemic that soared from 1984 to 1990, which made cocaine cheaply available in cities across the US.
. The graying of America characterized by the fastest-growing segment of the US population – baby boomers – passing the age of 50.

***

Perhaps you can tell me how this changes the equation that the explosion of incarceration in the US is directly related to the war on drugs, the vats majority of which are for non-violent crimes.
 
BlackAsCoal said:
:0) Let's start from here .. "The number of people behind bars for nonviolent drug law offenses increased from 50,000 in 1980 to over 400,000 by 1997."

Now let's talk about violent crime, which is different, and not the cause of the explosion of incarceration .. which is intuitive reading from your chart.

US crime rate at lowest point in decades. Why America is safer now. - CSMonitor.com
The crime rate for serious crimes, including murder, rape, and assault, has dropped significantly since the early 1990s in part because of changes in technology and policing, experts say.

... four main reasons for the decline:

. Increased incarceration, including longer sentences, that keeps more criminals off the streets.
. Improved law enforcement strategies, including advances in computer analysis and innovative technology.
. The waning of the crack cocaine epidemic that soared from 1984 to 1990, which made cocaine cheaply available in cities across the US.
. The graying of America characterized by the fastest-growing segment of the US population – baby boomers – passing the age of 50.

***

Perhaps you can tell me how this changes the equation that the explosion of incarceration in the US is directly related to the war on drugs, the vats majority of which are for non-violent crimes.
Click to expand...

There are other reasons for the spike, like 3 strikes regardless of the type of conviction.

If there was no drop in crime with these drug offenders you might have a point-but there IS a drop, and as it turns out even those convicted for non-violent crimes are still criminals who do bad things.

So im fine with it.

Also-FROM YOU SOURCE http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0524/US-crime-rate-is-down-six-key-reasons

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0818/p02s01-usju.html

So what up with that?
 
Last edited:
US Conservative said:
There are other reasons for the spike, like 3 strikes regardless of the type of conviction.

If there was no drop in crime with these drug offenders you might have a point-but there IS a drop, and as it turns out even those convicted for non-violent crimes are still criminals who do bad things.

So im fine with it.

Also-FROM YOU SOURCE US crime rate is down: six key reasons - CSMonitor.com

US notches world's highest incarceration rate - CSMonitor.com

So what up with that?
Click to expand...

There was never any question of whether you would be fine with it brother. That was never in question.

The point is that the US has 5% of the world's population .. and 25% of all the prisoners in the world.

The point is that the VAST majority of those arrested in the war on drugs were for non-violent crimes, not violent crimes as you suggested.

The point is that the war on drugs and astronomical incarcerations are designed for-profit. There is more being spent on prisons than schools.

How much does it cost the taxpayer for the US to hold 25% of all the prisoners in the world.

Maybe you like all that while you complain about taxes at the same time.
 
BlackAsCoal said:
There was never any question of whether you would be fine with it brother. That was never in question.

The point is that the US has 5% of the world's population .. and 25% of all the prisoners in the world.

The point is that the VAST majority of those arrested in the war on drugs were for non-violent crimes, not violent crimes as you suggested.

The point is that the war on drugs and astronomical incarcerations are designed for-profit. There is more being spent on prisons than schools.

How much does it cost the taxpayer for the US to hold 25% of all the prisoners in the world.

Maybe you like all that while you complain about taxes at the same time.
Click to expand...

Good point. There's several stats just like that. 5% worlds pop., 45% global military expenditures.
 
BlackAsCoal said:
There was never any question of whether you would be fine with it brother. That was never in question.

The point is that the US has 5% of the world's population .. and 25% of all the prisoners in the world.

The point is that the VAST majority of those arrested in the war on drugs were for non-violent crimes, not violent crimes as you suggested.

The point is that the war on drugs and astronomical incarcerations are designed for-profit. There is more being spent on prisons than schools.

How much does it cost the taxpayer for the US to hold 25% of all the prisoners in the world.

Maybe you like all that while you complain about taxes at the same time.
Click to expand...

Whan you name drop those percentages WITHOUT CONTEXT (ie WHO, WHY, and the RESULTS OF) you are doing us a disservice.
I never implied that the majority were for violent crimes.

Yes, its expensive to house these guys, but its money well spent (generally). When you get into your conspiratorial "profit" stuff is where I shut off. I simply dont buy that dribble, but kudos for combining many of the lefts delusions. It cohesive. :)
 
BlackAsCoal said:
There was never any question of whether you would be fine with it brother. That was never in question.

The point is that the US has 5% of the world's population .. and 25% of all the prisoners in the world.

The point is that the VAST majority of those arrested in the war on drugs were for non-violent crimes, not violent crimes as you suggested.

The point is that the war on drugs and astronomical incarcerations are designed for-profit. There is more being spent on prisons than schools.

How much does it cost the taxpayer for the US to hold 25% of all the prisoners in the world.

Maybe you like all that while you complain about taxes at the same time.
Click to expand...

Maybe all drugs should be legalized in order to weed out the less intelligent among the human species. Survival of the fittest, and all of that.
 
Montecresto said:
Good point. There's several stats just like that. 5% worlds pop., 45% global military expenditures.
Click to expand...

That isn't 'anti-americanism' it isn't partisan .. that's data, that's truth.

No matter how depressed the rest of America may be .. there is always money for war. The travesty is that now even democrats have been bought off. Obama is as warmongering as Dick Cheney.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom