• 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!

Sessions orders return to tough drug war policies that trigger mandatory minimum sent

Re: Sessions orders return to tough drug war policies that trigger mandatory minimum

Rogue Valley said:
Those private prison companies that donated to the Trump campaign need more inmates to increase corporate profits...

Jeff Sessions Reverses Obama-Era Policy That Curtailed DOJ’s Private Prison Use

Private Prison Company Geo Group Gave Generously to Trump and Now Has Lucrative Contract

Under Mr. Trump, Private Prisons Thrive Again
Click to expand...

Okay, that's what I was asking for. Private prisons need to be banned. It's one step above 'convict leasing'. Google that one.
 
Re: Sessions orders return to tough drug war policies that trigger mandatory minimum

Nilly said:
Sessions orders return to tough drug war policies that trigger mandatory minimum sentences - LA Times



Derp. How about a mandatory minimum sentencing for lying to congress??

Anyway, let's see just how much more money we can waste on the war on drugs.

What's a little surprising to me is that now that drug abuse is becoming an issue for white people as well as black people (primarily through opioid addiction), we have seen far more of those on the republican side of the aisle take up the stance that drug addiction is a medical rather than criminal issue. More and more of the political or rich class know or knew someone with a drug issue, which has seen us frame the latest opioid issue as an epidemic with drug victims rather than a war against drug abusers.

https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/4/4/15098746/opioid-heroin-epidemic-race

LEAD - About LEAD

I would have hoped that this turnaround would extend to our justice department, but with Sessions (who has historically been very tough on drugs) I guess not. We've made good strides in the last few years towards a much smarter approach to drug addiction. Looks like we'll be set back a few.
Click to expand...

Fill prisons, little to no oversight of local police, civil rights cases low to no priority & sent down the sxxx chute. Did I miss anything?
 
Re: Sessions orders return to tough drug war policies that trigger mandatory minimum

Nilly said:
Treatment.

They should be medical issues, not criminal.
Click to expand...

So what do you when treatment fails? We have a big IV meth problem here in this little town, petty theft is rampant, we had like 7-9 pound steel windmill stolen out of our front yard, for what 50 cent at the scrap yard? If I find someone in my locked gate at night, I just might shoot if they so much as twitch at me.

How will treatment work on those who have no interest in it? As a fully recovered former meth addict (3 years, now) I can personally gaurentee you, that the drugs are not the only crimes here. I would guesstimate that 90% of theft is to feed a habit, not to mention the violent crimes.
 
Re: Sessions orders return to tough drug war policies that trigger mandatory minimum

<alt>doxygen said:
That I knew. I had forgotten that coke has a weaker classification than weed and LSD - there are other strange ones but that stuck. I also did not realize how much power the AG has with regard to this stuff. Too much, I think.
Click to expand...

The government has too much power in general, I think.

I can't comment on LSD, but I do find it interesting the differences between raw drugs like peyote and marijuana, and derivative drugs like LSD.

It also appears that THC is available as a prescription (under the name dronabinol), and CBN is not a controlled substance.
 
Re: Sessions orders return to tough drug war policies that trigger mandatory minimum

jmotivator said:
The government has too much power in general, I think.

I can't comment on LSD, but I do find it interesting the differences between raw drugs like peyote and marijuana, and derivative drugs like LSD.

It also appears that THC is available as a prescription (under the name dronabinol), and CBN is not a controlled substance.
Click to expand...
Also marketed as Marinol, had to find a way to patent it!
 
Re: Sessions orders return to tough drug war policies that trigger mandatory minimum

jmotivator said:
The government has too much power in general, I think.

I can't comment on LSD, but I do find it interesting the differences between raw drugs like peyote and marijuana, and derivative drugs like LSD.

It also appears that THC is available as a prescription (under the name dronabinol), and CBN is not a controlled substance.
Click to expand...


You can order CBD, Cannabidiol, online without any violation of law as it is without any THC, which is considered a mind-altering substance. Unlike alcohol, which may not be mind-altering by definition but has killed more people than Genghis Khan. CBD helps with physical pain and with whatever is racing in your mind to help you sleep at night. It comes in a liquid form in a bottle with a dropper. I’ve use MJ that has a high percentage of CBD for hospital patients whom are hooked-up to a squeezer tube of dronabinol. Which is, really, THC. They hate it. Smoking the high CBD strain of MJ reduces their need of THC by, on average, about 40%. CBD oil has still not gotten to the potency it needs to be. A high THC content works better than alcohol. It’s like nitrous oxide. I don’t recommend it only because it is illegal. Nitrous oxide and alcohol is. The added benefit of alcohol is that it kills more to rid our society of the lesser. There’s a word for that. Galton had it. The majority of Americans did in the 20’s and 30’s. What was it?
 
Re: Sessions orders return to tough drug war policies that trigger mandatory minimum

ttwtt78640 said:
OK, what is the proper treatment of someone (a street gang member?) selling highly addictive poisons to get tax free cash? In many cases the opioids are prescribed and sold (legally?) by medical professionals - what treatment would you recommend for that?
Click to expand...

Depends on the situation. Dealing, recreational use and addiction should be treated differently. That's the whole point, mandatory minimum sentencing doesn't allow for any flexibility in what happens next.

Slingshot Bob said:
So what do you when treatment fails? We have a big IV meth problem here in this little town, petty theft is rampant, we had like 7-9 pound steel windmill stolen out of our front yard, for what 50 cent at the scrap yard? If I find someone in my locked gate at night, I just might shoot if they so much as twitch at me.

How will treatment work on those who have no interest in it? As a fully recovered former meth addict (3 years, now) I can personally gaurentee you, that the drugs are not the only crimes here. I would guesstimate that 90% of theft is to feed a habit, not to mention the violent crimes.
Click to expand...

EMNofSeattle said:
What if they won't take treatment ?
Click to expand...

Fines and potentially jail time.

Theft is still a crime and should be handled accordingly. However, if someone is just caught with drugs but no other crimes have been committed then it should not immediately be handled as a criminal offense.
 
Re: Sessions orders return to tough drug war policies that trigger mandatory minimum

Nilly said:
Depends on the situation. Dealing, recreational use and addiction should be treated differently. That's the whole point, mandatory minimum sentencing doesn't allow for any flexibility in what happens next.





Fines and potentially jail time.

Theft is still a crime and should be handled accordingly. However, if someone is just caught with drugs but no other crimes have been committed then it should not immediately be handled as a criminal offense.
Click to expand...

That (bolded above) assertion is not true - if the law states that possession of X amount of Y is "dealing" (or deserves a larger sentence) then whether a person is also a recreational user or an addict makes no difference at all. The fact that you don't like a possession law does not make that law become invalid or unenforcible.
 
Re: Sessions orders return to tough drug war policies that trigger mandatory minimum

ttwtt78640 said:
That (bolded above) assertion is not true - if the law states that possession of X amount of Y is "dealing" (or deserves a larger sentence) then whether a person is also a recreational user or an addict makes no difference at all. The fact that you don't like a possession law does not make that law become invalid or unenforcible.
Click to expand...

The sentence should not be written into the law.

We have judges for a reason.
 
Re: Sessions orders return to tough drug war policies that trigger mandatory minimum

Blue_State said:
Oh ffs. We lost this "war". Fix the policies and this **** can go away.
Click to expand...

We have lost the war on drugs our cities and towns are flooded with opioids.
 
Re: Sessions orders return to tough drug war policies that trigger mandatory minimum

Nilly said:
The sentence should not be written into the law.

We have judges for a reason.
Click to expand...

Many laws, like speed limits, have the prescribed sentence based on the amount (level?) of violation included in the law - 5 mph over is not the same as 50 mph over the posted limit and the sentences imposed reflect that fact. Likewise the same level of violation in a construction or school zone may get one a harsher prescribed sentence still. The big problem with judges assigning different sentences to folks violating the same law is that conflicts with equal protection of the law.
 
Re: Sessions orders return to tough drug war policies that trigger mandatory minimum

ttwtt78640 said:
It is not Session's job as AG to change or ignore the law.
Click to expand...

From Loretta Lynch to Jeff Sessions is the greatest upgrade in the Attorney General Cabinet Post in the histoey
of the USA, though jailing potheads does seem to be a little extreme.
 
Re: Sessions orders return to tough drug war policies that trigger mandatory minimum

Nilly said:
The sentence should not be written into the

We have judges for a reason.
Click to expand...

So a judge should be able to impose the death penalty for possession?
 
Re: Sessions orders return to tough drug war policies that trigger mandatory minimum

EMNofSeattle said:
So a judge should be able to impose the death penalty for possession?
Click to expand...

What ridiculous hyperbole.
 
Re: Sessions orders return to tough drug war policies that trigger mandatory minimum

Nilly said:
Sessions orders return to tough drug war policies that trigger mandatory minimum sentences - LA Times



Derp. How about a mandatory minimum sentencing for lying to congress??

Anyway, let's see just how much more money we can waste on the war on drugs.

What's a little surprising to me is that now that drug abuse is becoming an issue for white people as well as black people (primarily through opioid addiction), we have seen far more of those on the republican side of the aisle take up the stance that drug addiction is a medical rather than criminal issue. More and more of the political or rich class know or knew someone with a drug issue, which has seen us frame the latest opioid issue as an epidemic with drug victims rather than a war against drug abusers.

https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/4/4/15098746/opioid-heroin-epidemic-race

LEAD - About LEAD

I would have hoped that this turnaround would extend to our justice department, but with Sessions (who has historically been very tough on drugs) I guess not. We've made good strides in the last few years towards a much smarter approach to drug addiction. Looks like we'll be set back a few.
Click to expand...

Can anyone
Listen to this guy and not laugh? He's back in his lynching days
 
Re: Sessions orders return to tough drug war policies that trigger mandatory minimum

Nilly said:
What ridiculous hyperbole.
Click to expand...

It may be a hyperbole but it is a perfectly appropriate response to a ridiculous non sequitur argument you made that the legislature has no right to restrict sentencing because we have judges . If there is a problem with mandatory minimum sentence thing because it takes away the power of judges to impose a sentence then there should be also a problem with the ability of the legislature to enact a maximum sentence because it takes discretion from judges
 
Re: Sessions orders return to tough drug war policies that trigger mandatory minimum

EMNofSeattle said:
It may be a hyperbole but it is a perfectly appropriate response to a ridiculous non sequitur argument you made that the legislature has no right to restrict sentencing because we have judges . If there is a problem with mandatory minimum sentence thing because it takes away the power of judges to impose a sentence then there should be also a problem with the ability of the legislature to enact a maximum sentence because it takes discretion from judges
Click to expand...

It's not perfectly appropriate at all, because no reasonable judge would sentence life for possession, even if it were legal.

I will admit off the bat that I am not informed enough about the current workings of the criminal justice system to know exactly what judges can and cannot do within the confines of the law.

However, I would say that it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that Judges should be appointed on the fact that they can reasonably hand out sentences based on the situation at hand. Sentences for the same crime can differ based on the circumstances of the crime (repeat offenses) and we have no issues with that. Mandatory minimum sentencing takes away judges discretion. I would also imagine there would be some review process whereby it is looked into should judges give overly lenient or overly harsh sentences.

In any case, my opinions on the matter go far beyond 'treatment instead of criminalization'. The idea behind decriminalization is not to simply leave the system as it is and just let drug addicts do their thing. Harm reduction projects, drug consultation services, detoxification units etc would be deployed. Ex-drug users that have agreed to treatment are re-integrated into society through training opportunities and employment support, rather than simply getting a criminal record.

Some of the options taken by other countries to dis-incentivize not taking up treatment include:

  • Fines.
  • Suspension of the right to practice if the user has a licensed profession (e.g. medical doctor, taxi driver) and may endanger another person or someone's possessions.
  • Ban on visiting certain places (e.g. specific clubbing venues).
  • Ban on associating with specific other persons.
  • Foreign travel ban.
  • Requirement to report periodically to the committee.
  • Withdrawal of the right to carry a gun.
  • Confiscation of personal possessions.
  • Cessation of subsidies or allowances that a person receives from a public agency.

I'm not saying all of these would necessarily be appropriate in the US but there are definitely options at hand.
 
Re: Sessions orders return to tough drug war policies that trigger mandatory minimum

Nilly said:
It's not perfectly appropriate at all, because no reasonable judge would sentence life for possession, even if it were legal.

I will admit off the bat that I am not informed enough about the current workings of the criminal justice system to know exactly what judges can and cannot do within the confines of the law.
Click to expand...

Well first off, when the legislature passes a law with the sentence set a judge cannot impose a valid sentence outside those parameters. if the law says the punishment for possession of, let's say, 500 grams of marijuana is 3-5 years then the judge cannot sentence to less than three nor more then five.

However, I would say that it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that Judges should be appointed on the fact that they can reasonably hand out sentences based on the situation at hand. Sentences for the same crime can differ based on the circumstances of the crime (repeat offenses) and we have no issues with that. Mandatory minimum sentencing takes away judges discretion. I would also imagine there would be some review process whereby it is looked into should judges give overly lenient or overly harsh sentences.
Click to expand...

The problem with that is that one you would get widely varying sentences for the exact same act and circumstances, some judges are liberal and won't impose any jail time, we saw just in Massachusetts this week a judge fudged a robbery conviction to save an alien from green card revocation and he later went and killed people. judges should not have it in their head that they have better judgement then the legislature.
In any case, my opinions on the matter go far beyond 'treatment instead of criminalization'. The idea behind decriminalization is not to simply leave the system as it is and just let drug addicts do their thing. Harm reduction projects, drug consultation services, detoxification units etc would be deployed. Ex-drug users that have agreed to treatment are re-integrated into society through training opportunities and employment support, rather than simply getting a criminal record.
Click to expand...

And most "harm reduction" strategies simply increase use, as I posted earlier about the safe injection site in Vancouver, greater Vancouver went from having 150 opioid overdoses a year to over 900 since opening the center, and that's a classic example of "harm reduction" which is code talk for "let them do what they want, without judgement" and people act like these services are not already available, we have programs where courts can divert your sentence in exchange for completion of an approved counseling or detox program. we have programs medicaid will cover if they cannot afford. and this is kind of a side point since the thread is about Sessions issuing a directive to FEDERAL prosecutors, lets' calm everyone down here, the Feds are not concerned about individual drug users, that's a state concern, you can be arrested and charged convicted dozens of times for simple possession and the feds won't even care who are. the Federal government is focusing on distributors, larger scale dealers, and people who conspire with said. to a lesser extent they prosecute people who possess drugs on federal property or on schools etc, but simply put, if you're a normal addict carrying small amounts of personal drugs the FBI is going to grab you off the street and take you to federal court for charges.

Some of the options taken by other countries to dis-incentivize not taking up treatment include:

  • Fines.
  • Suspension of the right to practice if the user has a licensed profession (e.g. medical doctor, taxi driver) and may endanger another person or someone's possessions.
  • Ban on visiting certain places (e.g. specific clubbing venues).
  • Ban on associating with specific other persons.
  • Foreign travel ban.
  • Requirement to report periodically to the committee.
  • Withdrawal of the right to carry a gun.
  • Confiscation of personal possessions.
  • Cessation of subsidies or allowances that a person receives from a public agency.

I'm not saying all of these would necessarily be appropriate in the US but there are definitely options at hand.
Click to expand...

Nearly all these things are provided for under US law.
 
Re: Sessions orders return to tough drug war policies that trigger mandatory minimum

Nilly said:
Depends on the situation. Dealing, recreational use and addiction should be treated differently. That's the whole point, mandatory minimum sentencing doesn't allow for any flexibility in what happens next.





Fines and potentially jail time.

Theft is still a crime and should be handled accordingly. However, if someone is just caught with drugs but no other crimes have been committed then it should not immediately be handled as a criminal offense.
Click to expand...
So...business as usual?
 
Re: Sessions orders return to tough drug war policies that trigger mandatory minimum

People use illegal drugs no different than alcohol or prescription drugs. Though the outcomes of alcohol are fare worse then illegal drugs, if in possession of alcohol, you are not sentenced as a criminal offender and thrown in jail as you would be if in possession of an "illegal" drug. There is absolutely not logical argument that can stand up to scrutiny for this dichotomy. We fill out jails and glut our court systems because of drug prosecutions, which should be, for the most part, handled on the civil level as a health problem. Not a criminal offense to throw somebody behind bars and face a life or of harm and fear. This Sessions dude is a threat to society. Any of you have a thought to share?
 
Re: Sessions orders return to tough drug war policies that trigger mandatory minimum

jmotivator said:
It sure did. Hell, it forbid the growing of WHEAT for private use.
Click to expand...

Were those private wheat growers thrown in prison for several years?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom