Sessions issues sweeping new criminal charging policy

Make America Alabama Again, circa 1950.

I'm amazed that people actually support this crap, on ATS of all places. The few posters who aren't from the U.S. can be forgiven for their ignorance because all they know about what is going on over here is what other people tell them.

But if you're an American and support this, that's all on you. The war on drugs itself is what the majority of our social problems as a country were born out of. And now, a 70 year old man from Alabama who was too racist for a federal judgeship in the 1980's gets to enforce his "views" on the drug war, over the entire country.

With Sessions in power, the regressive label doesn't apply to the left anymore. This is pure regression. I'm sure Sessions buddies in the private prison industry that paid him all that money a few years back are ecstatic with this new announcement.

originally posted by: network dude
this thread is a perfect example of what's wrong with some of the people here. IN the past, there was a system in place to make changes. You would petition your local neighborhoods, then present that to your congressman. If enough people felt the same way, and the idea was just, you have a chance of having some changes made. But there was a system in place to provide for just that.

Fast forward to the SJW times, and you get this. Rather than follow the system to enact change, you appeal to the emotional response, generate a lot of noise, and force the system to cave into your will and desire by any means necessary. Completely disregarding the will of the majority.

And the very first time we allowed a whiner to get their way, we set the precedence for this.
If parents raised kids this way, we would have a nation of spoiled children who had no respect for authority, oh wait.....

Have you ever seen the history of voter turn out? Your statement is literally a fantasy. We have been an oligarchy for a long time.

a reply to: underwerks

So here is the crap, as you called it. It is one single page made up four paragraphs. Can you outline the specific paragraph that is crap that should not be supported??
Can anybody mention the specific paragraph or sentence that will bring in the apocalypse as is being sensationalized?? I am just not seeing Armageddon here.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

but they have been pretty good about clarifying constitutional issues.

maybe this is why the druggies haven`t had any success in gaining support and getting the laws changed, because they go off on rants about racism and the constitutionality of congress to make laws.
when they start doing that they give the impression that they aren`t mentally stable and people lose interest in supporting them and their goal of changing the drug laws.

good luck on your civil disobedience crusade to abolish the drug laws.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: underwerks
Can anybody mention the specific paragraph or sentence that will bring in the apocalypse as is being sensationalized?? I am just not seeing Armageddon here.

Strawman much? Not a single person here is saying that Sessions' policies will bring about the end of the country. We HAVE however pointed out over and over the failings of mandatory minimums which you seem keen on ignoring at all costs.

I am curious why so many think this federal mandate would be effecting personal recreational or medical users? One only finds themselves in a federal court system when state lines have been crossed! I do not see this effecting the average person who has a small amount on their person. It is obvious they are after those who decide to grow and distribute it across state lines and borders. If you are not crossing such borders, this fed mandate will not even effect you, it will fall into the state, county or city jurisdiction.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth
What has the incarceration rate got to do with anything? Are you suggesting that if there are too many criminals , society should accept it and let some people off? If so, you sound as radical as the last administration.

It's only a crime because we say it is a crime. That is it. There is no reason to put non-violent people behind bars.

So you're ok with drug dealers, even the small ones, being able to sell illegal drugs to minors that are killing them due to additives they add to their drugs just to make more profit? Are you ok with drug dealers destroying communities and devalueing others property due to their presence?

Just because a drug dealer hasn't had any violence charges doesn't mean they aren't violent. They tend to pay others to take care of that business anyways. It seems to me you don't personally know the extent of the crimes they commit. It's not just all black and white. There are many little details to drug dealers that make them terrible people.

originally posted by: Tardacus
a reply to: Krazysh0t

but they have been pretty good about clarifying constitutional issues.

maybe this is why the druggies haven`t had any success in gaining support and getting the laws changed, because they go off on rants about racism and the constitutionality of congress to make laws.
when they start doing that they give the impression that they aren`t mentally stable and people lose interest in supporting them and their goal of changing the drug laws.

So expressing opinions on the government's ability to govern drug usage is the realm of crazy talk now? Wow... You are just throwing any ridiculous argument you can to see if it'll stick aren't you?

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
So you're ok with drug dealers, even the small ones, being able to sell illegal drugs to minors that are killing them due to additives they add to their drugs just to make more profit? Are you ok with drug dealers destroying communities and devalueing others property due to their presence?

Oh sweet! A "what about the children!?!" defense. I was wondering when someone would try this silly argument. Hey guy, there is nothing preventing a drug dealer from selling to a criminal, but legal sales have a MUCH harder time of being sold to children due to regulations and the government shutting your shop down if you do.

Just because a drug dealer hasn't had any violence charges doesn't mean they aren't violent. They tend to pay others to take care of that business anyways. It seems to me you don't personally know the extent of the crimes they commit. It's not just all black and white. There are many little details to drug dealers that make them terrible people.

Drug dealers are merely entrepreneurs. Don't like who they are selling to then legalize the drugs so you can regulate that aspect.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
Mandatory minimums never went away, and this policy change is not making them any worse, so I am still trying to understand the problem. I made a counter argument citing reports and statistics that I feel contradicts your claim that mand. mins. are a failure. I feel that the reports and statistics show without doubt they in fact worked to get a national problem reduced significantly.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You have to have evidence first. Very novel.

originally posted by: CynConcepts
I am curious why so many think this federal mandate would be effecting personal recreational or medical users? One only finds themselves in a federal court system when state lines have been crossed! I do not see this effecting the average person who has a small amount on their person. It is obvious they are after those who decide to grow and distribute it across state lines and borders. If you are not crossing such borders, this fed mandate will not even effect you, it will fall into the state, county or city jurisdiction.

Because mandatory minimums don't work out that way in practice. We know EXACTLY what happens as a result of mandatory minimums and that is an increasing prison population that cycles down to mere users being busted and sent to jail for years at a time. This is proven through reality.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Mandatory minimums never went away,

For-profit prisons are a very bad idea.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Mandatory minimums never went away,

For-profit prisons are a very bad idea.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Mandatory minimums never went away, and this policy change is not making them any worse, so I am still trying to understand the problem. I made a counter argument citing reports and statistics that I feel contradicts your claim that mand. mins. are a failure. I feel that the reports and statistics show without doubt they in fact worked to get a national problem reduced significantly.

Define success then. Do you care about the costs of that success? Like increasing racism. Increasing tensions between the populace and the police. Increasing drug usage (yes the War on Drugs is directly responsible for increasing drug usage)?

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Are you unfamiliar with Jeff sessions?

It's broad and vague perfect for the unions.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: underwerks

So here is the crap, as you called it. It is one single page made up four paragraphs. Can you outline the specific paragraph that is crap that should not be supported??

Can anybody mention the specific paragraph or sentence that will bring in the apocalypse as is being sensationalized?? I am just not seeing Armageddon here.

I have issue with everything after the word memorandum, but the important parts are in the last two paragraphs.

To not be charged with a mandatory minimum on drug offenses, your sentencing will now have to be approved by someone connected to Sessions DOJ.

And the last paragraph talks about how it is now appropriate to recommend mandatory minimums as sentencing guidelines.

What of any of that is good or helpful to society?

Surely you understand the farce that the war on drugs and mandatory minimums are? Bringing back mandatory minimums doesn't make society safer, or help people. In reality it has the exact opposite effect.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I mean female genital mutilation probably helps stop infidelity. There for its good since the effect of the statistics is positive.

It's a ludicrous argument being presented.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You are confusing sentencing with being charged. DOJ does not determine the sentencing. Calm down.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I mean female genital mutilation probably helps stop infidelity. There for its good since the effect of the statistics is positive.

It's a ludicrous argument being presented.

Exactly. Just because crime has gone down doesn't mean that the policy is overall beneficial. There are many aspects and consequences that must be considered and analyzed as well. This isn't 1992 anymore. We have REAL data on how these policies play out, and it is for the worse. To ignore it and only look at the dropping crime rate so you can declare "SUCCESS!" is intellectually dishonest.