It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sessions issues sweeping new criminal charging policy

page: 12
45
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2017 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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.

Exactly. The last thing the cartels want is decriminalization and legalization of anything. That puts an end to their power and money.




posted on May, 12 2017 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Low hanging fruit..it's just so easy to pick.



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks




Exactly. The last thing the cartels want is decriminalization and legalization of anything. That puts an end to their power and money.


So? Poachers want to keep poaching illegal. It doesn't mean we should legalize poaching.



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks
a reply to: Krazysh0t
they also want to make it difficult to be prosecuted under mand. mins. with some of their former friends in previous positions.

Besides, nothing stops cartels from simply opening a shell company for a legit drug dispensary. In fact, they already have control over some in the west.



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

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

Try reading the thread. I've pointed out many arguments as to why mandatory minimums are bad and regressive policy.



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: underwerks
a reply to: Krazysh0t
they also want to make it difficult to be prosecuted under mand. mins. with some of their former friends in previous positions.

Besides, nothing stops cartels from simply opening a shell company for a legit drug dispensary. In fact, they already have control over some in the west.

That is a problem that can be tackled once drugs are legalize. That is NOT an excuse to maintain mandatory minimums. Again, why are you ignoring my point that there are better policing methods out there? Why are you so gung ho in support of these policies? Because they saved you from ONE crack head?



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: underwerks




Exactly. The last thing the cartels want is decriminalization and legalization of anything. That puts an end to their power and money.


So? Poachers want to keep poaching illegal. It doesn't mean we should legalize poaching.

What a nonsensical response.

Drug use and poaching.

Two completely different issues that have zero overlap. I'm down to discuss the issue of the drug war and mandatory minimums all day, this has been a cause of mine for years. But let's actually talk about the issues at hand, and not throw out strawman arguments.



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Try reading the thread. I've pointed out many arguments as to why mandatory minimums are bad and regressive policy.


I was interested in Session's memo, not WaPo's take on it.



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Im not in favor of keeping them so much as I keep trying to answer your repeated reworded questions of why I did approve or whether they were even effective. And this memo does nothing more in regards to mand. mins. other than to disclose all the facts including drug quantities during a sentencing guideline. Although, I firmly agree that a ten year stretch is warranted for the quantities of the drugs specified. A single kg of heroin will contribute to and destroy a LOT of lives. And not just the user. The user is not the harmless non-violent person who is being caught with a kg of heroin.

or 5 of coca, or 1000 of pot.

Legalizing anything beyond marijuana would destroy this country considering the already fragile mental state of the population as it sits. What you are asking is for this nation, the USA to accept another crack type epidemic from the end of the last century. Thank you but no. You wont get it for at least another half century, if not longer. Deal with that, and whatever drug habit you or a loved on suffer from.
edit on 5-12-2017 by worldstarcountry because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

What a stupid rebuttal.

I was responding to you're advocating legalization and decriminalization because the opposite makes cartels rich. I merely showed you the ridiculous logic at work in that foolish idea.



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

Personally I believe if police reform were in acted it would go much further than trying to get a street thug to squeel. The fact of the matter is mandatory min didn't really effect anything it changed Crack to meth, meth, to opioids etc. It is constantly shifting the problem. I could make a little damn that keeps my yard from flooding until it breaks and floods my yard. It's obvious drugs are a public health crisis and less criminal. The amount of drugs being passedone through the border and made in the country are often done so with the help of authority.

Police need bether training, and better pay based on risk instead of the opposite where you have suburban cops with the toys and funding.

Probably take that iq cap away as well.



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mandroid7

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.


Never really watched any crime shows, I tend to think they're boring. Seen enough of it growing up in the real world affecting innocent people and my neighborhood. You seem way out of touch or you're referring to your local weed dealer and honestly I could care less about your average weed dealer. What I'm referring to are your middleman heroine/meth dealers that have basically taken ownership of entire neighborhoods.



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: underwerks

What a stupid rebuttal.

I was responding to you're advocating legalization and decriminalization because the opposite makes cartels rich. I merely showed you the ridiculous logic at work in that foolish idea.

And this post is logical to you? To conflate two completely different things because well, illegal is illegal?

Seriously?

That's the type of ancient thinking that has got our society to the point it's at right now. Illegal doesn't mean wrong a lot of times, when it comes to drugs. It just means illegal. I believe it's morally wrong to lock a human being in a cage for having a plant on them. Whether two or a thousand plants, It doesn't matter.

I'm sure Jeff Sessions doesn't agree with that.

The consequences of being arrested for drugs are worse than the drugs you're caught with the majority of time.



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 12:29 PM
link   
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.
edit on 12-5-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: underwerks




Exactly. The last thing the cartels want is decriminalization and legalization of anything. That puts an end to their power and money.


So? Poachers want to keep poaching illegal. It doesn't mean we should legalize poaching.


Perhaps but poaching is "illegally hunt or catch (game or fish) on land that is not one's own, or in contravention of official protection", and getting high off drugs is taking a chemical and consuming it into one's own body.

Is one's own body not their own, and how can the government legitimize their doctrines of official protection of one's body from one's own self-desires?

If drugs are illegal because of the health concerns, than why put that person into a prison system where rape and murder are commonplace, diets and healthcare is awful, etc? That only forcibly harms their health even more!

Another point, if you support the government mandating health for everyone without Constitutional authority, than you must also support government mandated diets, rationing of sweets, exercise regimes, banning of soft drinks or bacon, etc. This also goes so far as to make sex illegal without permit (marriage licenses) and to heavily regulate childbirth (which insinuates either forced contraception or forced abortions), etc.

Look we need to decide on the fundamental issue here:
Does the government have the authority to tell you what to do with your body?

If yes - than all of the stuff I listed is fair game to regulate by law.
If no - than criminalization of drugs is unconstitutional and illegitimate.

Poaching is an entirely different ballgame altogether, clearly.
edit on 5/12/2017 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 12:37 PM
link   

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.



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

Maybe you've heard of an argument by analogy. It's one of the most common methods by which human beings engage in inductive reasoning.

Yes seriously.



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash

And this is what it comes down to, personal freedom. Why should the government have the ability to dictate what I can do with my own body?
As long as no one else is being hurt?



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: underwerks

What a stupid rebuttal.

I was responding to you're advocating legalization and decriminalization because the opposite makes cartels rich. I merely showed you the ridiculous logic at work in that foolish idea.


I also want to add that you are venturing into dangerous territory here.

Because of your strong support of the current administration you are experiencing a type of bias that prevents you from realizing right from wrong. This is NOT normal for you at all.

It is impossible for a political administration in the US to do everything right. It's OK that they are wrong on this issue, because the US Policy towards drugs has been wrong for an entire century and that's status quo.

I highly suggest you pick battles more carefully and be open to the concept that they (the admin) screws up. I also request that you reevaluate your positions and take into account the fact that you have been beset by heavy bias.

I say this as an outsider who doesn't really like either parties and is in a much more neutralized political vantage point.
My post right before this one asks the truly hard questions. Please take note of it.



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

I agree, police reform should be in order. My jurisdiction is really professional though. So much so that our former chief was sent to Miami to assist them with compliance on DOJ mandated reforms. And then that guy shot the man with hands up lying on his back. I wonder if there is just no saving Miami PD. They are our LAPD for the East Coast.



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join