Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

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


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
62 replies to this topic

#13 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • Joined: 17-March 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,270
  • Reputation: 479
HUDDLER

Posted 13 August 2013 - 09:00 AM

It should fall on the states anyway really.  Federal sentencing guidelines should only exist for breaking federal laws the defendent is being charged with. 

 

Kidnapping, rackateering, etc...that sort of thing.

 

Look to states ramping up certain sentencing laws if DOJ weakens current statutes. 



#14 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • Joined: 17-March 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,270
  • Reputation: 479
HUDDLER

Posted 13 August 2013 - 09:01 AM

Surprised Holder hasn't asked for an executive order for 3 strikes for assault or murder.



#15 dos poptarts

dos poptarts

    Member

  • Joined: 15-August 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,117
  • Reputation: 596
HUDDLER

Posted 13 August 2013 - 09:14 AM

Yea!.....agree with Holder on this one. Still think he needs to resign.



#16 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • Joined: 30-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 20,334
  • Reputation: 5,879
HUDDLER

Posted 13 August 2013 - 10:24 AM

no longer locking away low-level drug offenders for years at a time: literally a dictatorship

 

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.

 



#17 thefuzz

thefuzz

    coppin a feel

  • Joined: 12-December 08
  • posts: 9,348
  • Reputation: 1,520
SUPPORTER

Posted 13 August 2013 - 11:04 AM

I like the idea, but not coming from the Feds.

 

Would rather see the states do this.

 

 



#18 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • Joined: 16-August 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,950
  • Reputation: 607
HUDDLER

Posted 13 August 2013 - 01:08 PM

I'm still trying to figure out why the feds were involved with prosecuting low level drug offenders in the first place



#19 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • Joined: 09-November 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,589
  • Reputation: 2,139
HUDDLER

Posted 13 August 2013 - 03:33 PM

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.  



#20 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • Joined: 09-November 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,589
  • Reputation: 2,139
HUDDLER

Posted 13 August 2013 - 03:40 PM

I'm still trying to figure out why the feds were involved with prosecuting low level drug offenders in the first place

 

The feds are still raiding legally licensed businesses in California, Oregon, and Washington State for medical marijuana.

 

http://www.huffingto..._n_3653071.html



#21 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 24,868
  • Reputation: 2,555
SUPPORTER

Posted 13 August 2013 - 05:32 PM

It's going to continue to happen for at least a few years when the uncertainties around all this stuff settles. I'm a fan of legalization but all of this is happening very quickly and in a slipshod manner and there has to be some entity taking a slower approach to it.



#22 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 23,826
  • Reputation: 3,110
HUDDLER

Posted 13 August 2013 - 05:52 PM

what will be interesting is the # adding to the job search pool. good on one hand, but is going to make finding a gig that much more of a challenge.

 

still so many tough variables out there but if you get released you will take this and hopefully run with it for the better.



#23 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • Joined: 09-November 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,589
  • Reputation: 2,139
HUDDLER

Posted 13 August 2013 - 06:04 PM

It's going to continue to happen for at least a few years when the uncertainties around all this stuff settles. I'm a fan of legalization but all of this is happening very quickly and in a slipshod manner and there has to be some entity taking a slower approach to it.

 

Even in the states where cannabis is legal, employers can still enforce their drug use policies on employees.

 

From a national or international point of view this process may appear somewhat slipshod.

 

From a state and local perspective many people see it as confirmation that democracy is alive and well. 



#24 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 23,826
  • Reputation: 3,110
HUDDLER

Posted 13 August 2013 - 06:10 PM

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.