Congress Passes Legislation on Cocaine Sentencing Disparity

[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.