Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

justice department will no longer pursue mandatory minimum sentences for low-level drug offenders

63 posts in this topic

Posted

if you are not smart enough to weigh the consequences between failing a drug test or getting gainful employment then you need to be shot out of a cannon into Rosie O'Donnell's gut.

 

Exactly. 

 

So stop wasting law enforcements time and tax payer dollars arresting and locking people up for minor drug violations. 

 

If it will make the law and order crowd happier, cite violators and make them pay a fine like we do for breaking the speed limit or littering. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Giving the executive branch the power to establish and implement laws....well on the way to dictatorship.

 

He is not talking about the actual law being implemented....just the process of circumventing the checks and balances that have been established.

 

what law are you talking about exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

As an example of what I am talking about:

 

An employee at WalMart is involved in an accident on the job.

 

It's clearly work related, no employee malfeasance caused it, the employee makes a workers comp claim.

 

WalMart insists on a drug test. The employee comes up positive for THC.

 

The employee was not observed to be under the influence, etc - but WalMart and the insurance company will claim that the employee is "on drugs" and deny the claim. If the guy had gotten blasted on scotch every night that week, no foul, but if he had a toke a couple of times before bed or whatever, its an issue.

 

Law enforcement does not currently have a good way to check drivers for being high for example as well. All of this is uncharted territory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

As an example of what I am talking about:

 

An employee at WalMart is involved in an accident on the job.

 

It's clearly work related, no employee malfeasance caused it, the employee makes a workers comp claim.

 

WalMart insists on a drug test. The employee comes up positive for THC.

 

The employee was not observed to be under the influence, etc - but WalMart and the insurance company will claim that the employee is "on drugs" and deny the claim. If the guy had gotten blasted on scotch every night that week, no foul, but if he had a toke a couple of times before bed or whatever, its an issue.

 

Law enforcement does not currently have a good way to check drivers for being high for example as well. All of this is uncharted territory.

 

I think that Saliva tests (mouth swabs) are currently the only somewhat viable solution for "under the influence" testing for THC. THC only stays in saliva for around 5-10 hours depending. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It is no secret that the political strategy of the republican leader's in Washington D.C. is to oppose anything the president supports.  So expecting a GOP controlled House to pass legislation eliminating mandatory minimum sentencing for drug possession is fantasy, it would have never happened.

 

Executive action was the only way mandatory minimum sentencing was going to be eliminated.

 

It was the morally and ethically correct decision and long overdue.

 

Seems like some here would rather have people's lives ruined rotting in jail cells, than have their personal political ideals challenged.  

 

Your arguement is exactly why this is a problem.

 

Obama woudl not be able to get a law passed the correct way.....so he oversteps his bounds and delcares law from the Executive Branch.

 

Do you not see the problem and risk with that process?  Any president who does not want to go through the outlined checks and balances will just now declare their word/desire to be law. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

what law are you talking about exactly?

 

The executive branch declaring that they will refuse to prosecute offenders of an existing law is absolutely the equivalent of passing a new law making that same action legal.

 

A law is nothing more than words written on a piece of paper unless said law is enforced.  The enforcement is what makes a law valid.

 

But then again, I would not exect you to be able to comprehend this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

a step in the right direction

fiscal conservatives should wholly support this btw

I do support it! I just dont support the process. We are a nation that respects law and representative government. The end doesn't justify the means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I do support it! I just dont support the process. We are a nation that respects law and representative government. The end doesn't justify the means.

 

it sounds like you don't know much about the history and use of executive orders and you're just mad that obummer is using them because glen beck told you it's bad

 

here is a list of executive orders (limited to chester arthur because i didn't feel like doing two separate screen captures.)

 

 

 

ScreenShot2013-08-14at12853PM_zps47edcaa

 

 

 

granted obama isn't yet done with his term, but he has the least amount of executive orders signed since grover goddamn cleveland was sitting on his first term in the white house. it's important not to let the executive branch overstep its boundaries of power, but let's not pretend this is in any way a new phenomenon.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The executive branch declaring that they will refuse to prosecute offenders of an existing law is absolutely the equivalent of passing a new law making that same action legal.

 

A law is nothing more than words written on a piece of paper unless said law is enforced.  The enforcement is what makes a law valid.

 

But then again, I would not exect you to be able to comprehend this.

 

you wouldn't exect (sic) me to be able to comprehend something so fuging ignorant as your post? well hold on to your fat ass, bro

 

The executive branch declaring that they will refuse to prosecute offenders of an existing law is absolutely the equivalent of passing a new law making that same action legal.

 

i'm going to need you to show your work here because this statement requires quite the logical leap

 

A law is nothing more than words written on a piece of paper unless said law is enforced.  The enforcement is what makes a law valid.

 

prosecutorial discretion: two words that you've apparently never heard in tandem before in your life. two words that set fire to your nonsense.

 

now waddle away; you've got some googling to do

 

But then again, I would not exect you to be able to comprehend this.

 

i understand that you would not exect (sic) me to be able to comprehend the dumb poo that comes out of your mouth but i grew up in the south and i've dealt with plenty of goofy fugs in my time so i think i can handle it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

countries-with-the-most-prisoners-per-10

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

countries-with-the-most-prisoners-per-10

I used to be proud of how the USA would stand up for the human rights of those unfortunate enough to be born in oppressive backwards thinking nations. 

 

These days it makes me cringe to see American diplomats and politicians try and lecture other nations on human rights violations with our obscene incarceration rates and "legalized" torture techniques. 

 

Techniques, that until President Bush brought them back, had not been permitted for over one hundred years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Theyre finally admitting that they cant afford to incarcerate so many citizens for non violent offenses - sort of admitting it that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites