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: 16
45
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2017 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Do you think the war on drugs actually keeps drugs off the streets and out of people's bodies? Shouldn't people have the liberty to use drugs if they want to?




posted on May, 12 2017 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Do you think the war on drugs actually keeps drugs off the streets and out of people's bodies? Shouldn't people have the liberty to use drugs if they want to?


I think it's a way they can pick the winners, and put rival gangs behind bars. Giving the public the false sense something is getting done.

Obvious nothing has actually been done accept people got rich off it. Drug lords, for profit prisons, defense contractors, leo's etc



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Do you think the war on drugs actually keeps drugs off the streets and out of people's bodies? Shouldn't people have the liberty to use drugs if they want to?


That's how I see this issue. People should be free to choose what they put in to their bodies and those that develop dependency issues should be treated at medical facilities, not prisons.

I would think that would be the real conservative's position as well, but I've come to understand that conservatism is just a label these days. There are only a few real conservatives around any more.



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Do you think the war on drugs actually keeps drugs off the streets and out of people's bodies? Shouldn't people have the liberty to use drugs if they want to?


I think it's a way they can pick the winners, and put rival gangs behind bars. Giving the public the false sense something is getting done.

Obvious nothing has actually been done accept people got rich off it. Drug lords, for profit prisons, defense contractors, leo's etc

Meanwhile, more people use drugs than ever before with no signs of stopping or curbing that increasing trend.



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash

Ahhhh, but which parts of the constitution? The part where congress passes laws and the executive enforces them, relying on the judiciary to determine their constitutionality? The functions are there to get rid of a bad law (and I agree, the drug war has been a stupendous failure) but ignoring it under the guise of following the constitution is just ridiculous and nothing more than rationalizing to get what you want.



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Do you think the war on drugs actually keeps drugs off the streets and out of people's bodies? Shouldn't people have the liberty to use drugs if they want to?


I think the war on drugs is a failure. I also think people should do whatever they want with their bodies, so long as they accept responsibility for their actions.



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: muzzleflash

Ahhhh, but which parts of the constitution? The part where congress passes laws and the executive enforces them, relying on the judiciary to determine their constitutionality? The functions are there to get rid of a bad law (and I agree, the drug war has been a stupendous failure) but ignoring it under the guise of following the constitution is just ridiculous and nothing more than rationalizing to get what you want.

So those people who took over the wildlife refuge awhile back should all be in prison for trespassing on federal land right?



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So your support of Sessions policy is based on what?
edit on 5/12/2017 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 03:25 PM
link   
A little backround on what holder did..

In 2013, United States Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. announced that the Justice Department would follow a new policy restricting mandatory minimum sentences in certain drug cases. In Alleyne v. United States (2013) the Supreme Court held that increasing a sentence past the mandatory minimum requirement must be submitted by a jury and found factual beyond a reasonable doubt. It increases the burden on the prosecutor to prove that the sentence is necessary for the individual crime by requiring that a mandatory minimum sentence be denied for defendant unless they fulfill certain criteria. Attorney General Holder held that the charges placed on an individual should reflect the uniqueness of the case and consideration in assessing and fairly representing his/her given conduct. This is supposed to prevent recidivism.



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 03:32 PM
link   
This shouldn't be a partisan issue. Sensible drug policy isn't liberalism, its pragmatism.

What we have now doesn't work, and has never worked.



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: muzzleflash

Ahhhh, but which parts of the constitution? The part where congress passes laws and the executive enforces them, relying on the judiciary to determine their constitutionality? The functions are there to get rid of a bad law (and I agree, the drug war has been a stupendous failure) but ignoring it under the guise of following the constitution is just ridiculous and nothing more than rationalizing to get what you want.


Here is how the precedent happened.

In October 2011 a report was issued to assess the impact of United States v. Booker mandatory minimum penalties on federal sentencing by the United States Sentencing Commission.


In Alleyne v. United States (2013) the Supreme Court held that increasing a sentence past the mandatory minimum requirement must be submitted by a jury and found factual beyond a reasonable doubt.

So Holder was actually doing his job and following the law. Just like you explain.



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74




So your support of Sessions policy is based on what?


The rule of law.



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




That's how I see this issue. People should be free to choose what they put in to their bodies and those that develop dependency issues should be treated at medical facilities, not prisons.


I may be ignorant to the issue, but aren't people free to do that already?



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

It is for many people. That is why about 90 percent of the public wants legal medical Marijuana. People have been going the legal route for decades for those of you saying there is a process. Obviously there is something else going on in this issue since it makes zero logical sense Marijuana has such an extreme set of circumstances for legalization. Far more than any toxic or addictive drug that can be prescribed.

Over half the public wants recreational legal. Heading into the mid 60 percent in favor.


I would personally really like a president who can focus on legislation that improves the lives of the majority of American people but those days are long gone. Liberals serve liberals republicans serve republicans and the centrists are perpetually screwed over having to choose one insanity or the other.
edit on 12-5-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Is it? Or will he be going against the supreme court?



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Laws are not fixed, they are changeable... as are policies of enforcement and penalization. So what about this policy makes you feel that it is correct?



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74




Laws are not fixed, they are changeable... as are policies of enforcement and penalization. So what about this policy makes you feel that it is correct?


Then change them.

I agree with the entirety of the memo.



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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.


It's cool, you are the last person I expected to understand that post. And partisan? Is SJW a new party?



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Even though it may go against the supreme court precedent and end up tieing up beaucraric appeals processes. Nice!


“If you are addicted to opiates, you’ll get White House attention and increased treatment options,” Miller said. “If you get picked up with crack in your pocket, you’ll get jail time and a mandatory minimum.”



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 03:50 PM
link   

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.
U.S. Has World's Highest Incarceration Rate

Since 2002, the United States has had the highest incarceration rate in the world. Although prison populations are increasing in some parts of the world, the natural rate of incarceration for countries comparable to the United States tends to stay around 100 prisoners per 100,000 population. The U.S. rate is 500 prisoners per 100,000 residents, or about 1.6 million prisoners in 2010, according to the latest available data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).1

United States incarceration rate

In the last forty years, incarceration has increased with rates upwards of 500% despite crime rates decreasing nationally.[15] Between the years 2001 and 2012, crime rates (both property and violent crimes) have consistently declined at a rate of 22% after already falling an additional 30% in years prior between 1991 and 2001.[16] As of 2012, there are 710 people per every 100,000 U.S. residents in the United States that are imprisoned in either local jails, state prisons, federal prisons, and privately operated facilities.[16] This correlates to incarcerating a number close to almost a quarter of the prison population in the entire world.[17] Mass incarceration is an intervening variable to more incarceration.[18]


And then FINALLY we had this:
Yes, the American Incarceration Rate Is Going Down

But new data from the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics finds that the trend is going in the opposite direction. When controlling for population growth, as German Lopez notes at Vox, there’s been a 7 percent drop in the nationwide incarceration rate over the past decade, from 492 prisoners per 100,000 Americans in 2005, to 358 prisoners per 100,000 Americans in 2015.

States have been trendsetters, with California alone reducing its prison population by tens of thousands thanks to ballot initiatives and legislative reforms.

But Sessions wants to reverse this trend, and you people are celebrating this!?!?! What is wrong with you?


With freedom comes responsibility.

Liberals and drug users and abusers are not responsible nor have they any respect for themselves or others.

Now, I believe I can see what all the left's anti-Trump rhetoric is all about. You all are afraid that Trump et all, is going to take your drugs away!

MAGA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join