Sessions issues sweeping new criminal charging policy

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: worldstarcountry

You are sadly neck deep in your own self delusion. So a State Legal Pot dispensary delivery truck carrying 1000kilo of MJ - the driver can be charged and locked up and the sentence will be quite lengthy on account of mandatory minimums.

You think thats right? You think a legal MJ business in a state that has legally authorized the operation is organized crime?

Sad!

The only delusion is that where one thinks a state can pass a law that supersedes federal law.

It looks like the majority of U.S. citizens want the law changed, so why isn't it changed?

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Perhaps because the feds won't allow scientific research to prove its benefits?

Objective, conclusive scientific research into the effects of marijuana will continue to remain discouraged until the federal ban on the substance is lifted or relaxed.

They don't really want it badly enough, obviously. There has been so much effort put into stupid causes that are not even issues over the last year as a general protest against Trump... therefore we know it can be done. Very few must really care that much about this. Very low on the priority list.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Ok. I'm really confused that this needs to be pointed out. I feel like I'm not on ATS anymore.

I know that feeling. It's as if all the critical thinking skills once prevalent (or at least present) on this site reverted back into some Bill the Butcher fantasy dreamland, where neo-nativists sink into their own confirmation bias bathtub fart bubbles.

I can tell you one thing, though. If jails were filled with hunting law violators instead of marijuana users, this news from Sessions would be boiling the blood of every conservative on here.

As far as cracking down on states with recreational marijuana use? The silence from all the state's rights enthusiasts on ATS speaks volumes. It will be a huge catalyst if there ever was a civil war.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I dunno about segregation, that Session need to do. Seems like all the minorities are voluntarily segregating themselves all over the place, in such a sweep even KKK goes "Hey what's the matter with you folks!?"

But, it is as such a blow of fresh wind finally to see LaLaLand close the shop, and rule of law to step in. Focus on heavy end of scale, and start from there.

And we could finally check on Hillary Rodham's as well ...

Lmao at voting for laws in and then complaining when they're enforced. Come on man. You know weed's illegal. So, why do you smoke it? Are you addicted? You just can't stop, can you?

a reply to: UKTruth

Straight from the party of small government. Hope you don't choke on your hypocrisy!

I see why your mad.. When Dontavious has 585735435 prior felonies, you want him to continue to add to that, instead of being locked away for good...

originally posted by: RedDragon
Lmao at voting for laws in and then complaining when they're enforced. Come on man. You know weed's illegal. So, why do you smoke it? Are you addicted? You just can't stop, can you?

Prohibition didn't work for alcohol. It wasn't because everybody is alcoholic; it was because it was unAmerican. Almost as unAmerican as having the highest incarceration rate on the planet and enforcing laws to fight some fictional "drug war".

Sessions is addicted to private prisons.

a reply to: Abysha
nobody is cracking down on states rights to their legal marijuana. Show me a legal incident, decree, or law in the works alluding to such.

a reply to: Wayfarer
your delusion is believing this is the scenario it applies to. It is not. Marijuana is the minor issue here. Its going legal whether Sessions wants it or not. Te real question is why we want to hide when someone is caught with pounds and pounds of coc aine and heroin. There is not a dispensary in this country that receives 1000kg of MJ in a single load anyways.

People keep talking about a lack of critical thinking, but nobody including the OP wants to focus on the fact that Eric Holder changed the law to hide the amounts during prosecution when people caught with huge quantities of drugs. This is in the wake of his own department being exposed ARMING very dangerous and violent drug gangs south of the border.

No, all I hear is cries of racism, no doubt in some vein attempt to shame people to approve the release of drug traffickers after caught with massive quantities of community destroying drugs to avoid the minimum mandatory charge which also serves as a bargaining chip to get these people to plea bargain against the very violent organizations destroying communities and lives.

A black kid, or a white kid, or cheyenne native, or arabic homosexual, or whatever other sensitive demographic smoking a joint at his bus stop is not affect one iota by this policy change. Therefore, it is just sensationalism to imply as such.

a reply to: Trueman

It's good. Use drugs, go jail.

Will you say this when your daughter's boyfriend gets her hooked on oxy then she turns to H e r o i n? You people are deluded when you say these things.

Continue embracing your enslavement and everything will be okay

Stockholm syndrome is in full effect among the supporters of this current administration. OP has a valid point, do any of you understand mandatory minimum sentences?

Blindly following someone due to personal bias will end up badly...

originally posted by: UKTruth

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.

Nonsense. If you don't like a law work on changing the law. Sessions job is to enforce the law. It would be a dereliction of his duty to turn a blind eye to crime. God forbid you ever get your way and realise a country where only violent crime is punished.

You, like me are in the UK. Not every convicted crime in the UK results in jail time - good job too as the prisons are full enough. America has prisons for profit so for some people it makes sense to lock everyone up regardless of whether the scale of the crime justifies it - ridiculous sense, but to some people good sense.

I guess you think every crime = jail time then.

Jeff sessions is a police union stooge and private prison sales man so of coarse he wants more people in jail.

Police union are a major part of the reason inept cops stay on the force.

The guy doesn't think police agencies need review. Even though they have a force of 80 percent out of shape and the majority of officers being poor marksman.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

You'd like to think its just sensationalism, except Session's wants to lock up that kid with the J at the buss stop for 5-10 years (mandatory minimum) just so his investment through for-profit prisons see's that sweet return he's expecting. You would have to either be willfully indulging a moral vacuum for the sake of profit or just plain racist to endorse it.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Nickn3

Sessions is reversing all the progress we've made!

You've nailed it there. Isn't it great!

So you agree with the US having the world's highest incarceration rate? That's not the land of the free at all.

Lol, the land of the free does not mean you are free to commit crime. Good lord.

Don't break the law and you are as free as a bird.

Your argument is like saying if the cancer rate keeps going up, we should stop trying to find a cure for it.

So you are saying the government is correct on things that you agree with then?

Nope. I am saying that the law needs to be enforced. Those laws are what society has agreed upon through a democratic process. Not enforcing laws goes against what the people want, whether you personally like it or not.

No. Those laws are a result of a racist policy from a crook President. We have Nixon's recordings that show that the War on Drugs was ENTIRELY a policy directed at liberals and black people. Go learn your history. Just because it is a law, doesn't mean it is just. Slavery was legal at one time too.

Now you are being silly.
A President does not make the law. The legislative branch makes the law.
No one said the laws were just - but they are the law.
You have a process for changing the law, but once again, Sessions job as AG is to enforce the current laws on the books. All very very simple.

No. I'm not. There is very clear data that the War on Drugs has played out very disproportionally towards minorities. Sessions is a racist and is resurrecting a racist policy. And you are celebrating an act of racism.

No, I am celebrating an AG doing his job. About time.
The war on drugs catches those people dealing and taking drugs. If it affects minorities then so be it - that must be where the main problem is.

Lol. So you just accept things as they are. No need to question the narrative then? Minorities are JUST bigger druggies (never mind that the same data shows that white people buy and sell drugs at equal rates as minorities or anything). Just stick your head in the sand because you don't have to worry about the danger. "Doesn't effect me, so the policy is A-OK and working!"

If minority communities are affected so much by enforcing drug laws then yes , they are bigger 'druggies'.
Laws should never be ignored just because minorities might be affected disproportionately. Now THAT would be racist.
As for accepting things as they are - nope - there are plenty of ways to get laws changed, but you seem too focused on law enforcement as opposed the legislative branch.

Wrong.

How law is enforced is a widespread issue in the US. If enforcement spends most of its time stopping minorities while letting white people walk right on by that would be a problem that statistics cover up. It happens because not enough people are willing to acknowledge it, it's just so much easier to say, well they shouldn't do/sell drugs.

I'm not saying that all Police Departments or LE agencies are corrupt but it's really kind of basic human nature, a budget needs to be secured but that budget also has to be justified, arrest numbers matter, convictions based on those arrests matter... is it easier to combing through rural and suburban areas or just pop into the ghetto, less likely to pick up a judge or politicians kid there too.

so, back in 2012 when the democrats controlled both houses of congress and the office of the president, why didn`t they change the drug laws?
oh that`s right they were too busy jamming obamacare down our throats.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Nickn3

Sessions is reversing all the progress we've made!

You've nailed it there. Isn't it great!

So you agree with the US having the world's highest incarceration rate? That's not the land of the free at all.

Lol, the land of the free does not mean you are free to commit crime. Good lord.

Don't break the law and you are as free as a bird.

Your argument is like saying if the cancer rate keeps going up, we should stop trying to find a cure for it.

So you are saying the government is correct on things that you agree with then?

Nope. I am saying that the law needs to be enforced. Those laws are what society has agreed upon through a democratic process. Not enforcing laws goes against what the people want, whether you personally like it or not.

How do we know what society wants if there is no referendum voting on specific subjects/laws now in place?

Your representatives that you voted for make laws.

If you don't like what they put in place, vote them out.
Society, the people, always have the last word. Even without voting for representatives, laws can be changed by influencing representatives - take the Disability Act as an example.

My point is this - focusing on Jeff Sessions (which is obviously a political focus) - is a nonsense. Focusing on changing the law would be much more useful, then Jeff Sessions would not need to (or could not) worry about these things.

That was impossible to do with the mixed signals given to voters on this specific issue.

www.healthline.com...

No, it is never impossible to have a law changed. If there are differing views in society and not enough people can be mobilised to change a law then society really doesn't care for the law to be changed.

BULL#! Cannabis legalization polls around 60% of the population. Even conservatives agree with it. Medical Marijuana polls at 80% of the country. The only thing holding us back are dinosaur drug warriors who don't care about public opinion on the matter. This includes all legislators in Congress afraid to pull the trigger on this. Not just Sessions.

A poll means nothing if people are not prepared to do something about it. No action, no motivation to change. Therefore the law is accepted by society.

You mean like voting on the state level to legalize cannabis?

As you know, that is not the route to change federal law, which supersedes state law.
I could make a law in my house that said I could carry a gun outside, but i'd still be arrested the moment I walked outside my front door.
If enough pressure is exerted on the lower house and the Senate, then the law will change. Until it is, people don't care enough.
I am sure you know the route you need to take, but it sure isn't attacking a law enforcement official.

So the Tenth Amendment means nothing then?

a reply to: Wayfarer

that kid would not even be prosecuted Federally, so Sessions has nothing to do with it. First he would be prosecuted under the laws or ordinances of his county. If drug laws in his State have Preemption, than he would be prosecuted under State law. You attacking emotional inferences about Jeff Sessions actions are really irrelevant though. Can you cite a jurisdiction that would seek a mand. min. of 5-10 for smoking a joint in public?? When you find one, we can discuss the laws in that county/state.

I swear, do some of yall even have actual time and experience inside of a courtroom??

In the event people want to actually discuss what is written in this one page document, and not the assumptions of racial motives, I took a snap of it. Here it is.

originally posted by: Tardacus
so, back in 2012 when the democrats controlled both houses of congress and the office of the president, why didn`t they change the drug laws?
oh that`s right they were too busy jamming obamacare down our throats.

Probably because all the politicians go across the street to their call centers and become telemarketers. I guess the lobbyists don't want drug policy changes.

originally posted by: RedDragon
Lmao at voting for laws in and then complaining when they're enforced. Come on man. You know weed's illegal. So, why do you smoke it? Are you addicted? You just can't stop, can you?

I didn't vote to have this law implemented.

originally posted by: Tardacus
so, back in 2012 when the democrats controlled both houses of congress and the office of the president, why didn`t they change the drug laws?
oh that`s right they were too busy jamming obamacare down our throats.

Did I miss the ATS newsletter or something? Are we getting special profile borders or titles for coming up with the most off-topics deflections now?

It's like you guys are getting competitive with this or something.

originally posted by: Tardacus
so, back in 2012 when the democrats controlled both houses of congress and the office of the president, why didn`t they change the drug laws?
oh that`s right they were too busy jamming obamacare down our throats.

Probably because democrats, just like republicans, don't give a # about the American people's wants. Never have. Never will.

The partisan-BS is truly unbelievable. One thing is certain - I don't want to hear a single alt-right/Trump cultists mention the words "personal freedom," or "personal responsibility," because they've moved on from that to "nanny state," and "big government."

Democrats controlled the office of the president? Wtf? What does that even mean?