Congress Passes Legislation on Cocaine Sentencing Disparity

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

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.'

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.

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

Bully for you.

BTW, I wasn't going to get drunk nor do I think you or your dad smoke meth.

You don't? Really? *clutches my pearls* Never thought you did.

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

Whatever.

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.

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.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

LoL hypocrisy? I may have a drink or two over my weekend but guess what?? Alcohol isn't illegal! Don't try to say someone who is a social or weekend drinker is no different than a drug abuser or addict.

And I have no homework assignment for you other than to get a life.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

LoL hypocrisy? I may have a drink or two over my weekend but guess what?? Alcohol isn't illegal! Don't try to say someone who is a social or weekend drinker is no different than a drug abuser or addict.

So it's only the illegality that makes drug users (which is what you said, not addicts) losers. Do 18-20 year old drinkers are losers then too right? They should all rot in jail?

And I have no homework assignment for you other than to get a life.

You seem to have mistaken my suggestion that you perform anatomically unlikely acts upon your body with the idea that I am not otherwise entertained by other things.

When you stop posting ignorant shit, I'll stop telling you to fornicate with thine self.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

So it's only the illegality that makes drug users (which is what you said, not addicts) losers. Do 18-20 year old drinkers are losers then too right? They should all rot in jail?

No it's more than that, but since you seem to believe there's no difference between smoking a crack pipe and drinking a beer I'm not even going to bother with you.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

No it's more than that, but since you seem to believe there's no difference between smoking a crack pipe and drinking a beer I'm not even going to bother with you.

Oh no. However will I fill my life.

Seriously though, nice strawman.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Saying that drug users have no worth as human beings is reason to be told to go fuck themselves.

Thanks for the authoritativeness.

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

Ah yes - the CBO. I'll trust their numbers as soon as they stay consistent - you have to go all the way back to early 2010 to find the office swapping numbers, missing marks by hundreds of millions due to mistakes, and generally conceding that the math for health care was too complex for them to figure in any reasonable fashion.

I have no problems with the fine folks in the CBO - I don't doubt their earnestness, but I do doubt their ability. If they had the talent to forecast for Goldman, they'd be working for Goldman. So I'll stand by my point and appeal to the law of unintended consequences.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Thanks for the authoritativeness.

I didn't say you had to tell him to fuck himself, I said it's reason to. I really shouldn't have to put "in my opinion" in front of everything.

Ah yes - the CBO. I'll trust their numbers as soon as they stay consistent - you have to go all the way back to early 2010 to find the office swapping numbers, missing marks by hundreds of millions due to mistakes, and generally conceding that the math for health care was too complex for them to figure in any reasonable fashion.

I have no problems with the fine folks in the CBO - I don't doubt their earnestness, but I do doubt their ability. If they had the talent to forecast for Goldman, they'd be working for Goldman. So I'll stand by my point and appeal to the law of unintended consequences.

So your argument is "it might cost more" when the only change in enforcement is the length of the sentencing?

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

So your argument is "it might cost more" when the only change in enforcement is the length of the sentencing?

No - my argument, as stated earlier: if a main reason for reducing sentencing is to save money, that savings will likely not be realized to the extent that you would expect by simply subtracting that many prisoners from the existing system.

For me, the racial and socioeconomic disparity is enough reason to change the laws on its own - but it still doesn't hurt to take a skeptical eye to any claims, right?

For example, this:

My "arguement" isn't actually about saving money, that's a fringe benefit of removing a racist and reactionary law.

I'm not quite convinced that the fringe benefits are realizable. Seems like a fine point of discussion.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

No - my argument, as stated earlier: if a main reason for reducing sentencing is to save money, that savings will likely not be realized to the extent that you would expect by simply subtracting that many prisoners from the existing system.

For me, the racial and socioeconomic disparity is enough reason to change the laws on its own - but it still doesn't hurt to take a skeptical eye to any claims, right?

For example, this:



I'm not quite convinced that the fringe benefits are realizable. Seems like a fine point of discussion.

Fair enough, I think that removing mandatory minimums is more likely to save money than not, either way it's the RIGHT thing to do. And that matters more than the ancillary claims.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Fair enough, I think that removing mandatory minimums is more likely to save money than not, either way it's the RIGHT thing to do. And that matters more than the ancillary claims.

I agree - yet the ancillary claims are made . . . it's the fight against talking-points logic and lack of critical eye that we're waging here.