GreekChat.com Forums
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GreekChat.com Forums (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/index.php)
-   News & Politics (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/forumdisplay.php?f=207)
-   -   Congress Passes Legislation on Cocaine Sentencing Disparity (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/showthread.php?t=115004)

Drolefille 07-28-2010 04:38 PM
Congress Passes Legislation on Cocaine Sentencing Disparity
 
From the HuffPo
Quote:
Today, the House passed legislation reducing the two-decades-old sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine offenses. The Senate passed an identical bill in March and the legislation is now heading to President Obama, who supports the reform effort.

Before the changes, a person with just five grams of crack received a mandatory sentence of five years in prison. That same person would have to possess 500 grams of powder cocaine to earn the same punishment. This discrepancy, known as the 100-to-1 ratio, was enacted in the late 1980s and was based on myths about crack cocaine being more dangerous than powder. Scientific evidence, including a major study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, has proven that crack and powder cocaine have identical physiological and psychoactive effects on the human body.

The 100-1 ratio has caused myriad problems, including perpetuating racial disparities, wasting taxpayer money, and targeting low-level offenders instead of dangerous criminals. African Americans comprise 82 percent of those convicted for federal crack cocaine offenses but only 30 percent of crack users, and 62 percent of people convicted for crack offenses were low-level sellers or lookouts.

Advocates pushed to totally eliminate the disparity but ultimately a compromise was struck between Democrats and Republicans to reduce the 100-to-1 disparity to 18-to-1. The compromise also eliminated the five year mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of five grams of cocaine (about two sugar packets worth). The repeal of that mandatory minimum is the first repeal of a mandatory minimum drug sentence since the 1970s. Overall, the compromise bill is expected to reduce the federal prison population by thousands of offenders and save an estimated $42 million in criminal justice spending over the first five years.
I'm not sure WHY we had to settle for 18-1, but OK fine I'll take it.

Kevin 07-28-2010 05:12 PM
So basically, we're going to have more people in prison for longer.

Exactly what we need. WTG Congress!

Drolefille 07-28-2010 05:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 1960053)
So basically, we're going to have more people in prison for longer.

Exactly what we need. WTG Congress!
How the hell did you get that out of that news story?

DaemonSeid 07-28-2010 05:19 PM
No...we are going to have people in jail because crack and cocaine possession are now both nearly equal under the law.

Yes...Way to go Congress!!

If Billy Jones has 500 grams of cocaine and Donte Jenkins has 500 grams of crack...BOTH will do equal time.

Billy won't get that smack on the wrists like he used to!

Drolefille 07-28-2010 05:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaemonSeid (Post 1960058)
No...we are going to have more people in jail because crack and cocaine possession are now both equal under the law.

Yes...Way to go Congress!!
No they're not equal, but much closer.

Also still probably fewer people, not more.

DaemonSeid 07-28-2010 05:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille (Post 1960059)
No they're not equal, but much closer.

Also still probably fewer people, not more.
Yeah go it...made the appropriate change...

Drolefille 07-28-2010 05:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaemonSeid (Post 1960060)
Yeah go it...made the appropriate change...
No you're still wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaemonSeid (Post 1960058)
No...we are going to have people in jail because crack and cocaine possession are now both nearly equal under the law.

Yes...Way to go Congress!!

If Billy Jones has 500 grams of cocaine and Donte Jenkins has 500 grams of crack...BOTH will do equal time.

Billy won't get that smack on the wrists like he used to!
No you have it backwards. They're lowering the sentence times for crack not raising them for powder cocaine. Or more specifically they're lowering the comparative crack:powder quantity conversions.

No longer would someone with 5 grams of crack face the same punishment as someone with 500 grams of powder cocaine. Now 5 grams of crack will be treated like 90 grams of powder. Still a disparity but far better.

Drolefille 07-28-2010 05:36 PM
Another source that may be clearer.
 
AP:
Quote:
Under current law, possession of five grams of crack triggers a mandatory minimum five-year prison sentence. The same mandatory sentence applies to a person convicted of trafficking 500 grams of powder cocaine.

The proposed legislation would apply the five-year term to someone with 28 grams, or an ounce, of crack.

Julie Stewart, president of Families Against Mandatory Minimums, said 28 grams is about what the average crack dealer might carry around.

...

She cited Sentencing Commission estimates that almost 3,000 people a year subjected to the mandatory sentence would be affected by the change. The average sentence in these cases would be reduced from 106 months to 79 months.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the main sponsor of the bill in the Senate with Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said last year close to 1,500 people were convicted for possession of somewhere between five and 25 grams of crack cocaine, subjecting them to mandatory minimum sentences.
Quote:
In the 2008 campaign, Obama said the sentencing disparity "has disproportionately filled our prisons with young black and Latino drug users." He cited figures that blacks serve almost as much time for drug offenses — 58.7 months — as whites do for violent offenses — 61.7 months.
...
Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, was the only lawmaker to speak against the bill, saying the 1986 law was enacted at a time when the crack cocaine epidemic was bringing a sharp spike in violence to minority communities and it would be a mistake to change it.

"Why do we want to risk another surge of addiction and violence by reducing penalties?" he asked. "Why are we coddling some of the most dangerous drug traffickers in America?"

Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., noted that the bill also requires the sentencing commission to significantly increase penalties for drug violations involving violence. "This way the defendant is sentenced for what he or she actually did, not the form of cocaine involved," Scott said.

DaemonSeid 07-28-2010 05:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille (Post 1960064)
No you're still wrong.


No you have it backwards. They're lowering the sentence times for crack not raising them for powder cocaine. Or more specifically they're lowering the comparative crack:powder quantity conversions.

No longer would someone with 5 grams of crack face the same punishment as someone with 500 grams of powder cocaine. Now 5 grams of crack will be treated like 90 grams of powder. Still a disparity but far better.
ok.

Still in the ball park of what I was thinking (still a bit loopy right now)...

Im trying to find the thread that this was discussed in where we discussed the disparity of crack vs coke sentences and how that also translated to racial inequality

ThetaDancer 07-28-2010 05:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 1960053)
So basically, we're going to have more people in prison for longer.

Exactly what we need. WTG Congress!
Did I misread the article? I got the exact opposite impression.

knight_shadow 07-28-2010 05:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaemonSeid (Post 1960072)
ok.

Still in the ball park of what I was thinking (still a bit loopy right now)...

Im trying to find the thread that this was discussed in where we discussed the disparity of crack vs coke sentences and how that also translated to racial inequality
It was the Arizona Immigration thread. Started on this page.

DaemonSeid 07-28-2010 05:57 PM
That's not it...I thought there was a thread that was devoted to that 'crack vs coke' sentencing issue...o well

naptime

knight_shadow 07-28-2010 05:58 PM
Ahh, I hadn't seen that one.

Drolefille 07-28-2010 06:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThetaDancer (Post 1960076)
Did I misread the article? I got the exact opposite impression.
No, you're right. Kevin's inexplicable.

Kevin 07-28-2010 06:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille (Post 1960056)
How the hell did you get that out of that news story?
Cerebral flatulence. It's been a long day.

FHwku 07-28-2010 06:27 PM
http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...d.php?t=114550

for thread synergy

preciousjeni 07-28-2010 06:48 PM
Thank goodness! Now we're getting somewhere. :) But WHAT??

Quote:
The compromise also eliminated the five year mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of five grams of cocaine (about two sugar packets worth)
I'm not up on sentencing, but FIVE YEARS for a little smidge of cocaine???????????? How was that ever considered reasonable?

Drolefille 07-28-2010 07:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by preciousjeni (Post 1960112)
Thank goodness! Now we're getting somewhere. :) But WHAT??



I'm not up on sentencing, but FIVE YEARS for a little smidge of cocaine???????????? How was that ever considered reasonable?
It's quite reasonable, because OMG CRACKHEADS WILL KILLS US ALL AND TEH BABBIES OMG THINK OF THE CHILDRENZ

(Also that was for crack, not powder cocaine)

preciousjeni 07-28-2010 07:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille (Post 1960130)
It's quite reasonable, because OMG CRACKHEADS WILL KILLS US ALL AND TEH BABBIES OMG THINK OF THE CHILDRENZ

(Also that was for crack, not powder cocaine)
Crack may be whack, but crackheads make for good comedy. (God bless them and I hope they get the help they need. Truly.)

PiKA2001 07-28-2010 07:31 PM
YAY! More brain dead crackwhores walking the streets!

Maybe the reason for such long jail sentences was because people don't like looking at crackheads. People who use drugs are nasty, f@cked in the head, and generally worthless. I'm all for locking them up, powder or rock form, for life.

Drolefille 07-28-2010 07:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PiKA2001 (Post 1960148)
YAY! More brain dead crackwhores walking the streets!

Maybe the reason for such long jail sentences was because people don't like looking at crackheads. People who use drugs are nasty, f@cked in the head, and generally worthless. I'm all for locking them up, powder or rock form, for life.
Fine so pay for it.

Also go fuck yourself in the process!

PiKA2001 07-28-2010 07:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille (Post 1960151)
Fine so pay for it.

Also go fuck yourself in the process!
Awww, is someones daddy in jail for smoking crack? I thought your type smoked meth?

Drolefille 07-28-2010 07:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PiKA2001 (Post 1960158)
Awww, is someones daddy in jail for smoking crack? I thought your type smoked meth?
What the fuck is wrong with you?

PiKA2001 07-28-2010 07:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille (Post 1960159)
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Why do you take things so seriously? Relax, inhale, exhale...

preciousjeni 07-28-2010 07:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PiKA2001 (Post 1960148)
I'm all for locking them up, powder or rock form, for life.
http://www.motifake.com/image/demoti...1245522311.jpg

Drolefille 07-28-2010 07:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PiKA2001 (Post 1960160)
Why do you take things so seriously? Relax, inhale, exhale...
You went from a typically prejudiced and uninformed comment to calling my dad a crack addict even though "my kind" prefer meth?

And I'm the one taking it too seriously?

Go fuck yourself.

dreamseeker 07-28-2010 07:51 PM
0_o

PiKA2001 07-28-2010 07:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille (Post 1960165)
You went from a typically prejudiced and uninformed comment to calling my dad a crack addict even though "my kind" prefer meth?

And I'm the one taking it too seriously?

Go fuck yourself.
I plan to tonight after dinner and a sixer of shinerbock.

PiKA2001 07-28-2010 08:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by preciousjeni (Post 1960163)
LOLLERS!

DaemonSeid 07-28-2010 08:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by preciousjeni (Post 1960142)
Crack may be whack, but crackheads make for good comedy. (God bless them and I hope they get the help they need. Truly.)
http://www.cantstopthebleeding.com/img/Tyrone2.jpg

Psi U MC Vito 07-29-2010 12:47 AM
I have no idea if it has been discussed before, but why are drugs even a federal issue/

PiKA2001 07-29-2010 02:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito (Post 1960324)
I have no idea if it has been discussed before, but why are drugs even a federal issue/
Like each state should have its own drug laws? But then we would potentially have a patchwork of 50 different laws involving drugs in this country!;)

I can only imagine it's because drugs are a controlled substance like tobacco or alcohol, the feds feel its their job to regulate it like they have done with alcohol and tobacco. It was under pressure from the Feds that made the states bump up their drinking ages to 21 and crack-downs on minors purchasing cigarettes, but then again if you are caught breaking those laws there is no federal mandated punishments because they aren't federal crimes. I've always assumed other countries worked the same way as ours in regards to drugs being a "national" issue as opposed to a local one. Are there any countries that leave illegal drug policies or punishments up to the local governments?

FHwku 07-29-2010 02:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito (Post 1960324)
I have no idea if it has been discussed before, but why are drugs even a federal issue/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act

drugs are not for everyone. the threshold for addiction differs from person to person and drug to drug. "just say no," is just about as good advice as any.

some people should definitely do drugs.

like Dr. Hunter S. Thompson. he'll always be one of the most influential American writers to have put ink to paper. his contribution to literature and the world is immeasurable. and he was out of his gourd.

Stevie Ray Vaughan is a guitar legend in the lineage of Robert Johnson. SRV quit drugs and his fucking helicopter went down.

some should definitely not.

now, Whitney Houston, she needs to stay off that pipe.

Ray Charles, i'm glad he got that dinosaur off his back. Sad that Bradley Nowell could not.

ThetaDancer 07-29-2010 09:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PiKA2001 (Post 1960148)
YAY! More brain dead crackwhores walking the streets!

Maybe the reason for such long jail sentences was because people don't like looking at crackheads. People who use drugs are nasty, f@cked in the head, and generally worthless. I'm all for locking them up, powder or rock form, for life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PiKA2001 (Post 1960158)
Awww, is someones daddy in jail for smoking crack? I thought your type smoked meth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PiKA2001 (Post 1960175)
I plan to tonight after dinner and a sixer of shinerbock.
Holy hell. Is everything ok? This seems really unlike you (or at least, unlike how you normally post).

Psi U MC Vito 07-29-2010 11:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PiKA2001 (Post 1960369)
Like each state should have its own drug laws? But then we would potentially have a patchwork of 50 different laws involving drugs in this country!;)

I can only imagine it's because drugs are a controlled substance like tobacco or alcohol, the feds feel its their job to regulate it like they have done with alcohol and tobacco. It was under pressure from the Feds that made the states bump up their drinking ages to 21 and crack-downs on minors purchasing cigarettes, but then again if you are caught breaking those laws there is no federal mandated punishments because they aren't federal crimes. I've always assumed other countries worked the same way as ours in regards to drugs being a "national" issue as opposed to a local one. Are there any countries that leave illegal drug policies or punishments up to the local governments?
Each state does have it's own drug laws. Though according to the link FHwku posted it makes sense now if the US is subject to treaties involving Drug control.

KSig RC 07-31-2010 07:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille (Post 1960151)
Fine so pay for it.
Well, this is a terribly short-sighted way to look at the topic . . . since there is a strong chance that the decrease in jail population will be offset by repeat offenders, attendant criminal acts, no commensurate decrease in "War on Drugs"-style low-efficiency enforcement policies, etc.

If the goal is to reduce institutional racism by changing the sentencing guidelines, I'm fine w/ it. However, the guarantee of cost savings rings hollow, especially since crack is not commonly a 'recreational' drug, and the bill apparently does nothing to address the underlying problems that lead to use/abuse of cocaine/crack, meaning that enforcement will drop with absolutely nothing else to address use. That's not a recipe for success, is it?

Quote:
Also go fuck yourself in the process!
You kind of started the whole thing here . . . you told the dude to go fuck himself before any of his insults toward you. Just pointing out.

Also, why should he go fuck himself for taking a strong anti-drug stand? He has the causation/correlation loop backwards and made some value judgments I wouldn't agree with, but you kind of jumped on his shit there for a relatively mild reaction.

preciousjeni 07-31-2010 09:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC (Post 1961402)
. . . since there is a strong chance that the decrease in jail population will be offset by repeat offenders, attendant criminal acts, no commensurate decrease in "War on Drugs"-style low-efficiency enforcement policies, etc.
You have far too much faith in our law enforcement system.

Drolefille 07-31-2010 10:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC (Post 1961402)
Well, this is a terribly short-sighted way to look at the topic . . . since there is a strong chance that the decrease in jail population will be offset by repeat offenders, attendant criminal acts, no commensurate decrease in "War on Drugs"-style low-efficiency enforcement policies, etc.

If the goal is to reduce institutional racism by changing the sentencing guidelines, I'm fine w/ it. However, the guarantee of cost savings rings hollow, especially since crack is not commonly a 'recreational' drug, and the bill apparently does nothing to address the underlying problems that lead to use/abuse of cocaine/crack, meaning that enforcement will drop with absolutely nothing else to address use. That's not a recipe for success, is it?



You kind of started the whole thing here . . . you told the dude to go fuck himself before any of his insults toward you. Just pointing out.

Also, why should he go fuck himself for taking a strong anti-drug stand? He has the causation/correlation loop backwards and made some value judgments I wouldn't agree with, but you kind of jumped on his shit there for a relatively mild reaction.
Saying that drug users have no worth as human beings is reason to be told to go fuck themselves. Especially when followed up with talking about how he'll be drunk later. Somehow, I still find that different than making personal comments about someone... and "my kind."

Also the CBO is the one with the financial information. They're generally considered to be non-partisan, argue with them about it.

PiKA2001 07-31-2010 11:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille (Post 1961510)
Saying that drug users have no worth as human beings is reason to be told to go fuck themselves. Especially when followed up with talking about how he'll be drunk later. Somehow, I still find that different than making personal comments about someone... and "my kind."
Oh shut the hell up already, truth be told I posted that first post just to piss you off. Your comment about "omg teh childrenz" pissed me off because there are people with legitimate concerns about drugs and their effects in their community and who the hell are you to ridicule them? How would you feel if the building across from your apt had hard core abusers hanging around at all hours of the day and your kids had to walk past them on their way to school?

The kicker is I'm actually for the decriminalization ( NOT legalization) of personal use amounts of narcotics.

BTW, I wasn't going to get drunk nor do I think you or your dad smoke meth. I was just returning your ridiculous personal attack with my own ridiculous personal attack. Like I said in my other post, you really need to calm down when replying to posts and not take everything so seriously.

I really do think that drug users are losers though.

Drolefille 08-01-2010 12:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PiKA2001 (Post 1961528)
Oh shut the hell up already, truth be told I posted that first post just to piss you off. Your comment about "omg teh childrenz" pissed me off because there are people with legitimate concerns about drugs and their effects in their community and who the hell are you to ridicule them?
There is having legit concerns and there is thinking that crack is 100x worse than powder cocaine and deserves 100x the punishment. It was a law based on fear not science, and didn't protect children, just sent proportionally more minorities to prison than otherwise 'deserved it.'

Quote:
How would you feel if the building across from your apt had hard core abusers hanging around at all hours of the day and your kids had to walk past them on their way to school?
This would be an example of the "think of the children" argument. Most people were NOT having this problem, yet still the federal government passed a law that was incredibly flawed.

Quote:
The kicker is I'm actually for the decriminalization ( NOT legalization) of personal use amounts of narcotics.
Bully for you.

Quote:
BTW, I wasn't going to get drunk nor do I think you or your dad smoke meth.
You don't? Really? :eek: *clutches my pearls* Never thought you did.

Quote:
I was just returning your ridiculous personal attack with my own ridiculous personal attack.
Whatever.

Quote:
Like I said in my other post, you really need to calm down when replying to posts and not take everything so seriously.
Saying "go fuck yourself" doesn't actually mean I'm mad, or upset. It means I think you're ignorant.

Quote:
I really do think that drug users are losers though.
Bully for you. The hypocrisy of that coming from someone who drinks alcohol is impressive. But really, I'm sick of doing your homework for you in this and previous threads. Hence, continuing to reply with..

Go fuck yourself.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:52 PM.
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.