Sessions issues sweeping new criminal charging policy

a reply to: muzzleflash

That's not the rule of law. Sorry sir.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Middleoftheroad

What about the pharmaceutical suppliers, Dr's, pharmacies and general culture?

Maybe the way forward is to keep people from wanting to try drugs that are extremely toxic and addictive. Regardless of their legality. Once they are using them well they are if physically addicted in a state of mental illness. Prevention, rehab, community policing, how about we try and help people and situation rather than punish. Ince tives usually work better than punishment. In poverty jail is hardly the worst case scenario.

I agree with a possession charge, but the problem is most of the users do illegal activities to pay for their addiction. Like robbing local businesses, houses, and individuals in their communities. They tend to also already be on the government tit, whether it be welfare, foodstamps, or whatever other government handout they can get their hands on.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: muzzleflash

well the OP supported somebody else using female genital mutilation as a good analogy too. I don't really see why we need any analogies. The topic, and what the memo actually says stands on their own fairly well.

The problem really is that the Legislature has created a huge mess by failing at their duties.

So now we have the Executive flipping back and forth between Administrations trying to decide how to fix the Legislature's perceived failure.

It is the Judicial's fault though because it was their job to strike down Unconstitutional statutory law.

So in essence, all 3 branches of our government have failed to effectively address the "drug problem" and are completely incapable of handling the situation for the betterment of society as a whole.

This is the ultimate reality.

a reply to: underwerks

My only point was that because someone is making money off the illegality of something, doesn't mean we should make it legal.

Another analogies to drive home my point, because it seems lost in the attempts misrepresentation:

Child pornographers are making more money off of child porn because it is illegal. Should we decriminalize or make legal child porn?

That's it.

I fully understand and agree with the failed War on Drugs and prison system. No one should spend decades of their lives in prison for a bag of weed.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: muzzleflash

That's not the rule of law. Sorry sir.

I don't know what you think "Rule of Law" is, but this is what it is:

"Law rules over all men. Men do not rule over men."

That is it's most basic format.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: underwerks
I fully understand and agree with the failed War on Drugs and prison system. No one should spend decades of their lives in prison for a bag of weed.

Then why do you defend people like Sessions who have expressed a desire to return to the worst days of the drug war?

a reply to: muzzleflash

I don't know what you think "Rule of Law" is, but this is what it is:

"Law rules over all men. Men do not rule over men."

That is it's most basic format.

The Oxford English Dictionary Definition:

"the restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws."

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: underwerks

My only point was that because someone is making money off the illegality of something, doesn't mean we should make it legal.

The full context of the issue is important though.

Yes alone the argument is valid - what you said in this quote above - but in context it is only one of many dozens of good arguments of why the drug war needs to end for the betterment of society.

From human rights, property rights, actual practical reality, taxation, medical uses, etc etc, there are many good arguments compiled to favor ending the war, destroying the cartels is just one of those good points.

Poaching simply doesn't have this robust armada of great points favoring the legalization of it.

a reply to: underwerks

Then why do you defend people like Sessions who have expressed a desire to return to the worst days of the drug war?

I'm defending his memo, which is very reasonable. I'm not sure how his memo will lead to the worst days of the drug war, but I am all ears.

a reply to: muzzleflash

The full context of the issue is important though.

Yes alone the argument is valid - what you said in this quote above - but in context it is only one of many dozens of good arguments of why the drug war needs to end for the betterment of society.

From human rights, property rights, actual practical reality, taxation, medical uses, etc etc, there are many good arguments compiled to favor ending the war, destroying the cartels is just one of those good points.

Poaching simply doesn't have this robust armada of great points favoring the legalization of it.

It is not a good argument. In fact it is a dangerous one. It should be stricken and removed from whatever great points are already in place.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: underwerks

Then why do you defend people like Sessions who have expressed a desire to return to the worst days of the drug war?

I'm defending his memo, which is very reasonable. I'm not sure how his memo will lead to the worst days of the drug war, but I am all ears.

I don't find recommending mandatory minimums reasonable, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

a reply to: underwerks

Do you find recommending that we follow the law to be reasonable?

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: underwerks

Do you find recommending that we follow the law to be reasonable?

Depends on which law. I don't believe drug laws to be reasonable in the least.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope


Because the effects of drug use and addiction go far beyond ones own body.

Just like the effects of gun ownership go far beyond ones one personal space? Funny how I've never heard you argue against that though. Oh that's right, this smug fella is some kinda conservative champion wonk. Also a hypocrite.

a reply to: underwerks

I don't find recommending mandatory minimums reasonable, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

According to critics of Holder's memo, prosecutors were shackled from prosecuting those who were "non-violent", even if the facts had proven they were deserving of mandatory minimum sentences. This at least leaves it up to the prosecutor's discretion. As for mandatory minimums, I think that's up to congress, not the DOJ, to decide.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: underwerks

Do you find recommending that we follow the law to be reasonable?

To follow the law we must first ensure Constitutional law is upheld.

Statutory law is merely "evidence of law" which is interpreted via common law precedent and tradition.

This is no simple task.

Plea bargaining is a good example of how quickly the water is muddied.

a reply to: Wayfarer

Just like the effects of gun ownership go far beyond ones one personal space? Funny how I've never heard you argue against that though. Oh that's right, this smug fella is some kinda conservative champion wonk. Also a hypocrite.

Like the effects of car ownership? Knife ownership? God, man. This is tedious.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: underwerks

I don't find recommending mandatory minimums reasonable, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

According to critics of Holder's memo, prosecutors were shackled from prosecuting those who were "non-violent", even if the facts had proven they were deserving of mandatory minimum sentences. This at least leaves it up to the prosecutor's discretion. As for mandatory minimums, I think that's up to congress, not the DOJ, to decide.

Well actually the judges decide and have proven themselves capable of twisting things to suit their whims regardless of any legislation in place.

Then ultimately it is up to the people to regulate all 3 branches of government via the theory of representation, of which it is clear they have failed in most cases of achieving, for myriad reasons.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

You are so wrapped up in the extreme cases for these mandatory minimums that you ignore the instances where people get charged with FAR less drugs.

a reply to: muzzleflash

Well actually the judges decide and have proven themselves capable of twisting things to suit their whims regardless of any legislation in place.

Then ultimately it is up to the people to regulate all 3 branches of government via the theory of representation, of which it is clear they have failed in most cases of achieving, for myriad reasons.

Thanks for the correction. I imagine it varies throughout the states as well.