Congress Passes Legislation on Cocaine Sentencing Disparity

[Psi U MC Vito]

I have no idea if it has been discussed before, but why are drugs even a federal issue/

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

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]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

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]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

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.

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

Awww, is someones daddy in jail for smoking crack? I thought your type smoked meth?

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

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]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

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]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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?

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]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

. . . 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]

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.