Sessions issues sweeping new criminal charging policy

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.

I agree with this Krazy.

I believe most drugs should be legalized, and as far as Marijuana it should be TOTALLY legal. And I have not even partaken in the last 25 years.

The war on drugs is total BS

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.

It looks impossible what with the present BIASED people in power.

Armentano said Trump has surrounded himself with politicians like Pence, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who have histories of ardent opposition to marijuana law reform. “If they hold key positions within a Trump administration, it is possible that they may promote policies that by and large reflect their longstanding antimarijuana bias,” Armentano said.

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.

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.

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 and it is Jeff Sessions duty to enforce laws.

originally posted by: stosh64

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.

I agree with this Krazy.

I believe most drugs should be legalized, and as far as Marijuana it should be TOTALLY legal. And I have not even partaken in the last 25 years.

The war on drugs is total BS

It is BS, and we shouldn't be celebrating it's reinstatement because of the partisanship that has developed in this country over the last two years. This issue is one that has traditionally been bi-partisan, even here on ATS (especially here on ATS actually). I cannot believe that partisanship is rearing its head on this and many traditional conservatives are celebrating Sessions bringing back this failed policy.

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?

a reply to: Krazysh0t
The only thing I question is why somebody would want to hide the fact that a defendant was dealing in large quantities of drugs, the meat and potatoes of this charging policy change. The mandatory minimums never really went away, they just got pushed into the distance by hiding and withholding details during a trial/hearing during prosecution.

The quantities discussed involved 10 year minimums, and are directly related to organized criminal organizations. Now why would a former AG who's department was exposed in an illegal arms trafficking scandal to large organized drug cartels want to withhold information to the public during prosecution that would expose the quantity of large hauls as being connected to organized crime and reduce the chance of those mand. mins. ??

Thats my main concern right there.
Lets forget about the tug at heart strings and minorities. Lets focus specifically in the legal details. Can you answer the questions posed honestly??

a reply to: projectvxn

The policy changes how criminal defendants will be charged not how they will be sentenced.

Which subsequently affects the sentence. Those that have been through the system know that what usually happens is that the suspect is charged with multiple charges that all cover the actual crime and some. Then at the defendant level the higher crimes are often dropped for a plea of guilty to the lesser charges. Now the initial charge is where this comes into play because Sessions is telling his subordinates to charge at the highest possible level for the crime which will always carry a heavier sentence. Mandatory minimums are just wrong in that they leave the Judge with no wiggle room in what may amount to "the gray" area involved in any particular case.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

So you are just going to ignore the racist implications of this policy then?

Lets forget about the tug at heart strings and minorities. Lets focus specifically in the legal details. Can you answer the questions posed honestly??

Why? That is a big part of the issue. Again the War on Drugs is an admitted racist policy. Nixon has admitted that he came up with it to target hippies and blacks. This has morphed over the years to target not just blacks but most minorities. So it is a key detail.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

We can still find common ground Krazy.

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.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
Listen, the controversy here is hiding massive quantities of drugs the defendant was dealing during prosecution in order to avoid stiffer penalties. I don't care if you are black, white, native american, chicano or chinese indian. If you are dealing a kilogram of heroin or 5 kilos of coc aine, you are involved with a violent gang or organized crime. Not disclosing these quantities is not going to do any justice for the citizens and families who have to suffer in the communities where these drugs will be disseminated and consumed in.

You believe it is acceptable to hide these facts so that people involved with violent criminals can avoid getting the sentences they deserve???

You tell me who the hell has access to 1000kg of marijuana?? Its not a poor school skipping 18 year old black boy in suburban America, I tell you that much. Do not try to mislead others into believing this is the case.

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.

Ok North Korea you are as free aa a bird.....just dont break the law?


The USA has plenty of petty and stupid laws

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!

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.

originally posted by: crazyewok

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.

Ok North Korea you are as free aa a bird.....just dont break the law?


The USA has plenty of petty and stupid laws

False equivalence. The people in NK have no power to change the law.
We're back to the obvious. Americans are free as long as they don't break the law - and they make their own laws.

To even suggest that NK and the USA provide their citizens with the same level of freedom is a complete nonsense.

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.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Die painfully and slowly sessions. I hope alzeimers takes you. You deserve the worst disease a person can suffer from for all the pain and needless misery you are putting into this world.

originally posted by: Nickn3
If you don't like the law, work to change it. Don't bitch about enforcement.

exactly!

That`s the way our parents did it and our grand parents did it and our... the younger generation is too lazy to do things the right way/ legal way. if they don`t like a law they will just violate the law and then bitch about being a victim when they get caught and punished.
maybe it`s all the drugs that they do that is making them too lazy and apathetic to change the laws the right way/the legal way?
maybe they suffer from attention deficit disorder or some kind of immediate gratification disorder and they aren`t able to fight the good fight for years or decades to get the laws changed the right way/the legal way?