Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

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


  • Please log in to reply
62 replies to this topic

#16 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,082 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

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

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,456 posts

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

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,735 posts

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

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,642 posts
  • LocationAlaska

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

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,642 posts
  • LocationAlaska

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

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,703 posts

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

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,238 posts
  • LocationMontford

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

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,642 posts
  • LocationAlaska

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

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,238 posts
  • LocationMontford

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.



#25 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,642 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 13 August 2013 - 06:17 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.

 

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. 



#26 gospodin shuttlesworth

gospodin shuttlesworth

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,613 posts

Posted 13 August 2013 - 07:56 PM

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?



#27 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,703 posts

Posted 13 August 2013 - 07:58 PM

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.



#28 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,369 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 14 August 2013 - 08:00 AM

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. 



#29 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,082 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

Posted 14 August 2013 - 09:09 AM

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. 



#30 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,082 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

Posted 14 August 2013 - 09:12 AM

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.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.