Sessions issues sweeping new criminal charging policy

originally posted by: netwarrior

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?

Laws are not passed by a vote. Try again. As a matter of fact, how dare you. I have an autoimmune disease that is slowly eating away at my joints and will probably leave me crippled long before I reach retirement age. The most popular treatment for this disease destroys my immune system and makes me susceptible to opportunistic infections or god forbid, Tuberculosis. That's saying nothing of the long term effects.

Know what else I can treat my disease with? Cannabis. Side effects are elevated mood and an increased tolerance of the piss-poor behaviors exhibited by my fellow man. This does not stop my chronic joint pain. All it does is make me not notice the pain as much but that's enough. Hell, I don't even get the munchies anymore. Why don't I just take a genuine gov't-approved magic opiate pill like the rest of the country? Severely allergic to codeine, and moderately allergic to any opiate that isn't intravenous morphine. I can't take 'em without throwing my lunch up all over the wall.

On one hand, I can stay legal and be sick all the damned time. On the other, I'm a criminal but I can actually be a functioning member of society.

This is life under your America. I don't often agree with Krazysh0t but this is one of those times. I voted Trump and if the election was held again tomorrow I'd do it again but our President's choice of an AG turned my stomach.

I'm on the same page. But it's not the AGs job to make laws.

a reply to: RedDragon

He was a senator a few months ago. Can we be mad at him for pushing these laws then? And being a union stooge?

originally posted by: Tardacus
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I`m not trying to defend anyone, I`m just trying to defend the constitution and the rule of law.

Point out in the Constitution where the government even has the RIGHT to make drugs illegal in the first place? Back in the 30's they decided the government needed an Amendment to make them illegal.

the constitution and the rule of law has served this country well for over 200 years and has allowed it to grow and prosper.

just because the latest generation doesn`t have what it takes to work within the bounds of the constitution to make the changes that they want to see is not a good enough reason to trash the constitution and usher in anarchy where everyone just obeys the laws that they agree with.

It`s hard work and time consuming to get laws changed but nothing worth having comes easy and nothing that comes easy is worth having.
if changing the drug laws isn`t something that they are willing to work for and make sacrifices for then obviously it isn`t something that they really care about changing.

This is some cheap bull#. The liberal left has been steadily working to deescalate the War on Drugs and legalize marijuana for the last 3 years. Where have you been?

a reply to: luthier
Maybe I do, is that a problem? Do you think it clouds my judgement? I am quite anti-union myself actually, but people have their right to choose that, which includes the overbearing police unions.

I am open to your solutions. My community did implement improved community policing tactics and I cited as much. They did so as the city became safer as a means to prevent the resurgence from the great crack days of the eighties and nineties.

I am always open to discussing the core of the topics, which is what I have been doing this entire thread rather than get myself distracted with unrelated constitutional claims or partisan bickering.

originally posted by: Gargoyle91
a reply to: Krazysh0t

As a Kid in my 20's I had a run in with the overseers because I worked at a telemarketing company and let me tell you those mandatory minimum sentences are scary as hell I almost went away for 10 years not knowing the company was crooked. It's actually a book that they just go through and add up a score and what ever the # is that's what you get.

I believe it. Nothing more terrifying than being on the wrong side of bureaucracy since it is SOOOO inflexible.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If this true I about darn time we get justice department to cater to lawful abiding citizens and stop pandering to criminals.

Hallelujah.

So if slavery was still legal you'd support federal troops running down and recapturing escaped slaved then?

a reply to: worldstarcountry

I am a libertarian so I have no true party or partisan issue.

Just wondering if you see a motive for these laws?

Or the amount of issues that come up with mandatory mins.

I find it ironic that this massive drug epidemic is based on established pharmaceutical origin?

Any major arrests from pharma, dr's, pharmacies, etc.

Treatment programs, drug courts, community policing have shown far and wide better effects even though your trying to make this partisan with "liberal" policies creating crime. Bill Clinton a liberal pioneered many of these laws while president.

I think sessions is literally one of the worst possible choices, I mean this absolutely literally, for AG.

He is terrible for police officers.

Do you know 80 percent are out of shape and nearly as many are poor marksman, they don't have adequate stress training, have iq caps in some states and districts, are not rotated out of high crime areas enough, and a generally poorly trained and supported to perform their duty?

Sessions solution is throw money down the pipe sounds a lot like democrats with teachers.

originally posted by: Kali74

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.

But the OP even said minorities will be mostly affected by this. Why, are minorities forced to do and sell drugs? Do they not have freedom of choice the same as the rest of America?

This is about enforcing preexisting laws. I happen to agree that MJ should be legal. But until it is, it's not. And we don't get to pick and choose which laws we follow. ( unless you are entering the country without permission)
The law needs to be changed, then we get to do things the way we want, but it MUST be in that order, otherwise there is no ORDER.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

if it is unconstitutional for the government to make laws regulating drugs don`t you think by now,after all these years, the supreme court would have upheld that claim?

I can see where this conversation is going, next you will be ranting about how the whole system is corrupt and unconstitutional and we are all free men and the government has no legal authority over any of us.

originally posted by: luthier
Sessions solutions is throw money down the pipe sounds a lot like democrats with teachers.

AND remove the solutions that liberals have already come up with to fix the problems facing many urban police departments.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I agree but both conservatives and liberals have come up with these "liberal" methods. Like you say it's hardly a party issue.

For me it's very obvious.

Some people are us and them folks. They generally want to strengthen authority. Either party.

Then there are those that agree there is a social contract. It's us, the solutions are us, the problems are us, the way forward is us.

originally posted by: Tardacus
a reply to: Krazysh0t

if it is unconstitutional for the government to make laws regulating drugs don`t you think by now,after all these years, the supreme court would have upheld that claim?

Look how long it took them to overturn Segregation and it took a President to overturn Slavery. The SCOTUS doesn't exactly have the greatest track record when it comes to identifying racist and immoral policies we have on the book.

I can see where this conversation is going, next you will be ranting about how the whole system is corrupt and unconstitutional and we are all free men and the government has no legal authority over any of us.

Nice attempt at a strawman, but you clearly don't know me at all if you think I'd go for low hanging and easily refutable fruit like that.

a reply to: luthier
What I specifically said was this:
Crime continues to be rampant though in jurisdictions that take a more liberal policy towards drug related crime, and it typically reflects as such with higher violent crime rates within said jurisdictions. I will have to admit though I was making a generalized statement there, so thusly I propose the following questions in order to research and quantify my claims.

What would one define as a liberal policy towards drugs though, and which jurisdictions practice such policies??
With a handful of examples we can compile data from crime statistics in such jurisdictions and see if my claim holds water.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I agree but both conservatives and liberals have come up with these "liberal" methods. Like you say it's hardly a party issue.

Yes. I was thinking of Baltimore and New York where the efforts were led by liberals, but you are right. These consent decrees are pretty much unanimously being supported by both the public and police departments they are supposed to fix. Sessions interjecting and saying otherwise just because is wrong.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: RedDragon

He was a senator a few months ago. Can we be mad at him for pushing these laws then? And being a union stooge?

Absolutely.

But to get angry at him for doing his job as AG is ridiculous.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Even dumb dumb Rick Perry was an advocate for treatment, drug courts, and decriminalization.

a reply to: RedDragon

Not really. I still think he is a pawn of police unions and private prisons. He gets to decide where resources are sent and allocated.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

OH I forgot the best part in the AG's office there was a sign that said -"I can indict a ham sandwich" With picture of said sandwich.

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.....

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.....

Lol. This is whats wrong with ATS these days. Too many partisan hacks not bothering to research any argument they come in on before spewing their partisan crap. Never mind that every thing this guy just said has already been soundly refuted in this thread, he came in to show his partisan colors anyways.