Sessions issues sweeping new criminal charging policy

originally posted by: JAY1980

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Why are you just dismissing this because I'm a liberal?

Likely...
This chicken little syndrome has gotten to epic proportions and it's hard for the rest of us to even take it with a grain of salt. Besides if liberalism hadn't derailed so bad to begin with we would have never ended up here. You liberals are largely to blame for the majority of our economic and societal problems. Always yelling the sky is falling and sticking your noses where it doesn't belong. All while our monetary policies and foreign relations tank.
Kudos libs!

Where were all you "liberals" when the Obama administration was throwing away legitimate tax paying businessmen/women who owned and operated cannabis businesses?

Oh yeah it was a democrat in office and all the SJW cockroaches scurry back under the fridge whenever their guy in office.

So because Obama didn't fix the drug issue that makes it ok for Sessions to make the drug issue worse off than what it was under Obama?

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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.

Ok, well I guess we will just have to disagree. I really don't think we should have a heroine shop at the end of the corner, regulated or not.

These things already exist. They are called pill mills.

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad

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.

Well they tried testing welfare folks for drugs and actually found your totally wrong. In Florida they decided the tests alone were more expensive than kicking people off welfare because there were not very many.

And if you look at the opioid stats. The largest growth for the last 5 years has been white middle class men.

Your response actually shows how little you understand of the treatment and prevention approach.

Sessions is a real POS. Worst thing Trump has done was bring in this lunatic, freedom hating sob.

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.

Does the memo recommend mandatory minimums, the exact opposite of the holder memo? Or not?

That's my issue with this. Mandatory minimums used on drug offenses no matter the amount are wrong, and counterproductive to helping anyone.

Jail doesn't make someone into less of a criminal, it makes them better at committing crimes. As anyone who's ever done time can tell you.

It comes down to whether you want to help people, or punish them. In the case of drug crimes, punishing them isn't the same as helping, contrary to what a lot of people believe.

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.

Your not all ears or you would understand Jeff sessions. He has a long record of championing the war on drugs, he has talked about it as AG, he is just getting warmed up.

By the way he is a union and for profit prison stooge so of coarse he is going to take these steps and make broad and vague decrees that allow plenty of wiggle room for prosecution.

He is terrible for police officers who desparately need out support to help reform their entire job course and training. He is a right a check and give them more authority kind of guy. Like a conservative Democrat if you will.

a reply to: underwerks

Does the memo recommend mandatory minimums, the exact opposite of the holder memo? Or not?

From what I've read, it merely reinstates what the Holder memo forbade.

As for the rest I am in near agreement.

a reply to: luthier

Your not all ears or you would understand Jeff sessions. He has a long record of championing the war on drugs, he has talked about it as AG, he is just getting warmed up.

By the way he is a union and for profit prison stooge so of coarse he is going to take these steps and make broad and vague decrees that allow plenty of wiggle room for prosecution.

He is terrible for police officers who desparately need out support to help reform their entire job course and training. He is a right a check and give them more authority kind of guy. Like a conservative Democrat if you will.

I'm not really interested in the ad hom. What I'm interested are the arguments for or against.

a reply to: Krazysh0t


About time we see the pendulum swing back the other way.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Krazysh0t


About time we see the pendulum swing back the other way.

So you like having the number 1 incarceration rate in the world and a militarized police force?

Sessions has no power to change laws.

His duty is to enforce the law that already exists.

Obama and his incompetent boobs failed to do so.

Now unhinged regressives are having a fit because people are actually doing the jobs we pay them to do again?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Where was the ad hominem?

a reply to: Deny Arrogance

He has the power to allocate money to specific places. Like his union buddies and private prison friends.

a reply to: luthier

Here:

Your not all ears or you would understand Jeff sessions. He has a long record of championing the war on drugs, he has talked about it as AG, he is just getting warmed up.

By the way he is a union and for profit prison stooge so of coarse he is going to take these steps and make broad and vague decrees that allow plenty of wiggle room for prosecution.

He is terrible for police officers who desparately need out support to help reform their entire job course and training. He is a right a check and give them more authority kind of guy. Like a conservative Democrat if you will.

Sessions's record, his allegiances, or how terrible he is, does not mean his arguments are wrong.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Of coarse it does. Not only is there plenty of record and analysis on the effects of the war on drugs and mandatory min, he supports unions which are harming policing. And they support him.

And no its not a genetic fallacy which is what you meant if that is your rebuttal

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: luthier

Here:

Your not all ears or you would understand Jeff sessions. He has a long record of championing the war on drugs, he has talked about it as AG, he is just getting warmed up.

By the way he is a union and for profit prison stooge so of coarse he is going to take these steps and make broad and vague decrees that allow plenty of wiggle room for prosecution.

He is terrible for police officers who desparately need out support to help reform their entire job course and training. He is a right a check and give them more authority kind of guy. Like a conservative Democrat if you will.

Sessions's record, his allegiances, or how terrible he is, does not mean his arguments are wrong.

The argument being legally sound doesn't make it the right or moral thing to do though, and with Holder's memo he could have just as easily extended it. It's not like it was a constitutional crisis or anything that we weren't pursuing mandatory minimums as often any more or anything.

Sessions literally told Baltimore that the consent decree the city had decided and agreed upon to help with poor policing habits was counter to good policing efforts and tried to have it held up (luckily the courts overturned that nonsense). Sessions is poison to the concept of law and order.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: underwerks

Does the memo recommend mandatory minimums, the exact opposite of the holder memo? Or not?

From what I've read, it merely reinstates what the Holder memo forbade.

As for the rest I am in near agreement.

Exactly. Which is what the problem is here.

How can you be in near agreement with the rest of what I said and at the same time support a memo calling for mandatory minimums, which by default is one of the causes of what I said?

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Deny Arrogance

He has the power to allocate money to specific places. Like his union buddies and private prison friends.

No he does not.

There is a simple solution for you though.

Don't commit crimes.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Deny Arrogance

He has the power to allocate money to specific places. Like his union buddies and private prison friends.

No he does not.

There is a simple solution for you though.

Don't commit crimes.

Question: How do you feel about the US having the number 1 incarceration rate?

a reply to: Deny Arrogance

Uh yes he does. The AG decides where the enforcement concetration is. He can decide and present his expert opinion to tell other lobby stooges.