Sessions issues sweeping new criminal charging policy

a reply to: Mike.Ockizard

Your right the police unions and private prison lobby do.

originally posted by: Mike.Ockizard
a reply to: Krazysh0t

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

Go research mandatory minimums then get back to me. You clearly don't know what you are talking about.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I can't for the life of me figure out why liberty minded Americans would support greater authority. Or why unions are destroying schools and not police forces?

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I can't for the life of me figure out why liberty minded Americans would support greater authority. Or why unions are destroying schools and not police forces?

Me neither. I remember when I first started writing these threads when ATS first eased the restrictions on drug speak and all the threads were near unanimous in their dislike of mandatory minimums, the war on drugs, the super high US incarceration rate, and the federal government's overall involvement in the whole issue. When did this issue get tainted by partisan creep?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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.

I am still not understanding how a federal mandatory minimum is going to effect a simple user who will not be charged nor sentenced within a federal court system but within their own jurisdiction? If that jurisdiction has such a mandate as well, it is certainly easier to get local, county and state laws changed compared to getting congress to change federal laws. This is why some states have been able to legalize MJ in the first place!

a reply to: CynConcepts

You are thinking of primarily liberal states that have already legalized or relaxed state enforcement of marijuana or even drug usage over all. There is still half the country that hasn't touched drug laws in their states you know?

Though I hope and pray that states that have relaxed their policies stand up to Sessions' thugish behavior.

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad

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.

Sounds like you need to shut off the TV crime shows.

Most drug dealers are a dude playing video games grabbing something for their buddy.

a reply to: CynConcepts

So I assume we are now going to see lots of pharmaceutical companies, drs, pain centers, and pharmacies being prosecuted for their part in the opioid crisis? Literally the majority of addiction and overdoses come from a regulated market that Congress has oversight over. Why would we believe this law is going to help anything?

It's amazing to me that many laws were passed to control the distribution of drugs, yet their were very few prosecutions of the mass of recreational drug problems in pharmaceutical companies. Xanax, aderol, opioids, etc..it's a great mystery for investigators I guess, how more pills than patients ended up in the streets.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
I care that violent crimes have been reduced significantly in the decades following the implementation of said policies. The first crime I remember being a victim of was as a child having our home burglarized in 1991 by a white crack head while we were away on a trip. I got the details from my parents years later as a teenager. We lived in a black neighborhood, were hispanic, and were victimized by a white crackhead. Those are my stats.
originally posted by: underwerks
not will now, always has. He even cited the existing federal statute. You will notice in the last paragraph the important part is disclosing ALL FACTS that impact sentencing guidelines. This was the primary issue at heart with this memorandum. Eric Holder did not want to disclose drug quantities that would meet the mand. mins. for traffickers caught. 1kg of heroin, 5 kilos of coc aine, and 1000kg of MJ get ten years . Those quantities do not exist in the hands of passive recreational users. Those are distribution quantities regularly found exclusively with those working within organized criminal syndicates and gangs.

Eric Holder got lobbied by the drug cartels he was illegally supplying with weapons from the Fast and Furious op and they encouraged him to scale back these disclosure of legal facts is my best guess from the scandals he was involved in.

So either you should do more research, or maybe get a better grasp of what is written in that memo.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: CynConcepts

So I assume we are now going to see lots of pharmaceutical companies, drs, pain centers, and pharmacies being prosecuted for their part in the opioid crisis? Literally the majority of addiction and overdoses come from a regulated market that Congress has oversight over. Why would we believe this law is going to help anything?

Because the cash flow runs parallel to the death flow, and people like money

CDC’s standard analysis approach has combined the natural, semi-synthetic, and synthetic opioid categories (including methadone) when reporting deaths involving opioid analgesics, also referred to as prescription opioids. Using this method, in 2015 there were over 22,000 deaths involving prescription opioids, equivalent to about 62 deaths per day. This is an increase from approximately 19,000 in 2014.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

You mean like operation wide reciever?

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: Krazysh0t
I care that violent crimes have been reduced significantly in the decades following the implementation of said policies. The first crime I remember being a victim of was as a child having our home burglarized in 1991 by a white crack head while we were away on a trip. I got the details from my parents years later as a teenager. We lived in a black neighborhood, were hispanic, and were victimized by a white crackhead. Those are my stats.

So everything is just swell for you so there is nothing to worry about then? # everyone else that mandatory minimums screw over right?

It's the 2017 now; NOT 1991. If you don't believe there are better policing and enforcement methods out there now than mandatory minimums then you have your head in the sand.

a reply to: Mandroid7

a reply to: luthier
That already happened in my state starting in 2010 when the rest of the country was pointing their finger at Florida. Now those long lines that would wrap the buildings around the block even into the late night hours are gone. Doctors did get arrested and sentenced to prison.

Yes that was just as bad. I see you had a typo. Nobody here was praising the Bush administration at that time either. Although I did find Bush himself funny and an ok guy with some policies.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Operation wide receiver it was a typo.

What about pharmaceutical companies? Or pharmacies like in Kentucky where they had more pulls than people?

How about the actual top dogs?

No? Just like they don't get arrested in gangs either because of corruption. A couple people here and there makes it seem like your doing your job and it isn't a profit based industry.

For the record I think every president I have been alive for in my 40+ years is a disgrace to half the country. You can't legislate for half the country and expect to serve the country.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

it is up to your state and local jurisdictions to mandate and enforce said policies. Mine have already changed a bit. Neither I or the general public have any sympathy for somebody being charged Federally for trafficking in 1 kg of heroin, 5 kg of coc aine, or 1000kg of MJ as part of a criminal network.

It seems to me the people most against this would be the very ones involved in the drug trade.

a reply to: luthier

one of the main caveats of mand. mins. is as a bargaining chip to get cooperation for the lower dealers to testify against the top dawgs. They tend to be at the top for a reason, that is that they are good at keeping their hands clean. A en year sentence can go a long way in getting people who "don't know nuffin" to suddenly say "i'll tell you what you want to know"

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: Krazysh0t
I care that violent crimes have been reduced significantly in the decades following the implementation of said policies. The first crime I remember being a victim of was as a child having our home burglarized in 1991 by a white crack head while we were away on a trip. I got the details from my parents years later as a teenager. We lived in a black neighborhood, were hispanic, and were victimized by a white crackhead. Those are my stats.
originally posted by: underwerks
not will now, always has. He even cited the existing federal statute. You will notice in the last paragraph the important part is disclosing ALL FACTS that impact sentencing guidelines. This was the primary issue at heart with this memorandum. Eric Holder did not want to disclose drug quantities that would meet the mand. mins. for traffickers caught. 1kg of heroin, 5 kilos of coc aine, and 1000kg of MJ get ten years . Those quantities do not exist in the hands of passive recreational users. Those are distribution quantities regularly found exclusively with those working within organized criminal syndicates and gangs.

Eric Holder got lobbied by the drug cartels he was illegally supplying with weapons from the Fast and Furious op and they encouraged him to scale back these disclosure of legal facts is my best guess from the scandals he was involved in.

So either you should do more research, or maybe get a better grasp of what is written in that memo.

Do you even understand the Holder memo? And the changes it caused in our criminal justice system? I can tell you aren't very fluent in legalese by your attempt to spin this memo and defend Jeff Sessions ignorant ideas about the drug war. Everything I'm saying is right there in the memo for everyone to see.

Saying I need to "do more research" after justifying your interpretation of this memo by assuming Holder was "lobbied" by the cartels made me smile.

Yeah, its me that needs to do more research. The only drug dealers lobbying our leaders are the ones who's initials are on the pills in those little orange containers in your medicine cabinet.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: Krazysh0t

it is up to your state and local jurisdictions to mandate and enforce said policies. Mine have already changed a bit. Neither I or the general public have any sympathy for somebody being charged Federally for trafficking in 1 kg of heroin, 5 kg of coc aine, or 1000kg of MJ as part of a criminal network.

It seems to me the people most against this would be the very ones involved in the drug trade.

Way to dodge my point.

originally posted by: underwerks
Saying I need to "do more research" after justifying your interpretation of this memo by assuming Holder was "lobbied" by the cartels made me smile.

Lol. Cartels want to keep drugs illegal.

originally posted by: DAVID64
I'm sorry, but when all your sources are the rabid Liberals, who've been going after the Trump administration from day 1, like WaPo and CNN, I just can't take "The sky is falling" narrative they're pushing.

“charge and purse the most serious, readily provable offense”

As in, the guy who happens to have an ounce of weed on him when he shoots somebody, is going to get charged for the murder, not the weed.

You do realize that just because Washington Post is quoting Sessions doesn't mean you can automatically dismiss the article, right? Like..Sessions said what he said, regardless of who's quoting him.

And the murderer with weed in his pocket is an utterly irrelevant scenario in this instance. This is about a guy getting a life sentence for selling a plant.

Kindly remember that Sessions is of the opinion that smoking grass is "only slightly less awful" than shooting heroin.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Can you dispute any of the arguments in the memo? Or will we just appeal to emotions?