Sessions issues sweeping new criminal charging policy

a reply to: NightFlight

Trolling

a reply to: Kali74
Can you go to your local corner store right now right this minute, and there is a guy outside with baggies of coke and heroin ready for the needy? If not, that is the war on drugs working. It was literally like that in many urban and even suburban municipalities until these mand. mins. came into effect. Just willy nilly, be 14 years old if you wanted and get a little 40 of rock or powder. If you did not live in a place that had these problems, you could consider yourself lucky. And because of that ease, lots of people would just wait in parking lots, snatch purses, rip jewelry, beat the elderly for the pennies they had after getting groceries. Wait to see the moment left the houses and broke right in, and then do it again the next day if they were not already popped.

I mean I was only a kid and I saw this stuff. Many of you are from the older generation, did you guys just forget how it was, or were yall just lucky enough to be far enough away from non existent fake crime ?? These problem do still exist today, but not nearly with the prevalence and open brazenness as were prior.

Afterwards however as crime dropped down, many municipalities did adopt more interactive community policing standards, such as my own, which has helped developed good rapport and trust between LE and the public. A cop cannot get beat for more than 10 seconds in Florida before a bystander involves themselves to assist. That to me says law enforcement is doing right around here. EVEN IN THE JAILS.

Also I will just reiterate another question floating around. I have no problems with the incarceration rates as they are. Someone in the world has to be the model for proper and thorough policing and prosecution. We can't just let rioters toss molotv's at the police like in France and have the police be forced to retreat?? Ridiculous. If people want to respect law, they should start with those who enforce it.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Your anecdotal evidence is stupid.

I can take a picture tonight of exactly that in a conservative state (which generally have higher crime and more poverty)

And obviously it changed to prescription drugs which are now responsible for 60 percent of od's and addiction issues.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I agree with the entirety of the memo.

Based on? Do you think it will lower crime rates, addiction rates?

a reply to: worldstarcountry

If drugs were legal there would be stores to get them at like we have for alcohol, there wouldn't be drug dealers anywhere. Drugs are accessible now as they have always been, whether you're going to 'friends' house or buying off the street corner.

a reply to: luthier

There is a difference between driving for hours to try and find that one spot in town where I already acknowledged it still happens, and driving from block to block on any given day and time of day and having the leisure to simply playing duck duck goose with which store you would like to visit to get your drugs with impunity from whichever sleazebag out there.

a reply to: Kali74
and you would have an epidemic worse off than the crack one of the last century, as the mind control and power of suggestion is more thorough in this nation than any other on Earth. Kiss another entire generation of youth potential goodbye.

a reply to: Kali74

Based on? Do you think it will lower crime rates, addiction rates?

I don't pretend the government is an answer to social ills.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

If you feel the policy won't have the benefit of lowering crime and addiction rates, why have it? Just to lock more people up for longer? Cheap labor? Shares in private prisons?

a reply to: worldstarcountry

and you would have an epidemic worse off than the crack one of the last century, as the mind control and power of suggestion is more thorough in this nation than any other on Earth. Kiss another entire generation of youth potential goodbye.

People that want to use drugs, will use drugs whether they are legal or not. Personally I'd rather people have sovereignty over their bodies as well undercut cartels and street dealers by letting it into the market.

a reply to: Kali74

If you feel the policy won't have the benefit of lowering crime and addiction rates, why have it? Just to lock more people up for longer? Cheap labor? Shares in private prisons?

I don't feel that at all. I don't pretend that this or that policy will have a negative or positive effect in the future. That kind of thinking is left to the utopians. We can only judge what has already happened.

ETA: I think this is a good compromise between Holder's and Ashcroft's memos.

a reply to: Kali74

People that want to use drugs, will use drugs whether they are legal or not. Personally I'd rather people have sovereignty over their bodies as well undercut cartels and street dealers by letting it into the market.

People do have sovereignty over their body. They can put in it what they want. While we're at it, we should undercut those who distribute child pornography too by letting child porn hit the market.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I think there's pretty good evidence that authoritarian policy only increases the incarceration rate and fails to accomplish anything positive which renders such policies foolish to stand by and employ.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

OK well just in case you live in an ivory tower there are many poor states and poor cities you can get drugs anywhere. And no you don't need to drive for hours.

And as far as opioid they were sanctioned by the government who dragged it's feet for about 30 years until an epedicmic.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Do you understand legal precedent and how sessions memo could be an issue?

a reply to: Kali74

I think there's pretty good evidence that authoritarian policy only increases the incarceration rate and fails to accomplish anything positive which renders such policies foolish to stand by and employ.

Of course, just like not arresting people decreases the incarceration rate. But not arresting people because the incarceration rate is too high is a dangerous precedent, especially when those who were charged have committed provable crimes. That's what Holder's memo did according to critics.

a reply to: luthier

Do you understand legal precedent and how sessions memo could be an issue?

I'd love to hear you explain it.

a reply to: luthier

Ok, well your clearly not getting the comparison I am making to the way people sold thirty years ago and the way they do today so whatever. Ivory tower is clearly where all the responsible drug users are.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Sure it's real simple each case is built from the previous and supreme court rulings can change the entire court rulings including defense and prosecution.

The supreme court has been ruling for tighter controls on sentencing in mandatory min. Which is where Holder got the legal authority for the memo. Of coarse sessions can rule what he wants bit the cases may be thrown out as far as the way he wants them to go down.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

I dont because I live in a city that every corner store in the poor part of town has dealers.

a reply to: luthier
Really, tell me what city, because unless your in Philly, Chicago, Detroit or parts of NYC I would say your claim is exaggerated. I live in a city that used to have that problem, its gone now. You would have to go to some dark seedy places in this town now if you want to get some from a guy in the open like that. If they are merely selling pot that is not the drugs I am talking about.