"The Justice Department plans to change how it prosecutes some non-violent drug offenders, so they would no longer face mandatory minimum prison sentences, in an overhaul of federal prison policy that Attorney General Eric Holder will unveil on Monday...
"I have mandated a modification of the Justice Department's charging policies so that certain low-level, nonviolent drug offenders who have no ties to large-scale organizations, gangs, or cartels, will no longer be charged with offenses that impose draconian mandatory minimum sentences," Holder is expected to say, according to excerpts of his prepared remarks provided by the Justice Department.""
132 comments:
They shouldn't use the word "unveil" like that.
Tantamount to legalization.
Jazz sales should improve.
Everything this guy does is based on skin color. Blacks are disproportionately impacted. It's the right thing for the wrong reason, but I'll take it. He still sucks.
Legalizing drugs is not a panacea.
They must need the pothead vote desperately.
Mark Steyn pointed out recently that it has taken longer to get Major Hasan to trial than it took to defeat the Japanese after Pearl Harbor. We are pretty slow at everything today, and it has nothing to do a task's difficulty.
http://www.nationalreview.com/node/355421/print
Also the wrong way, bagoh20.
The Holder Justice Dept. seems to regard itself as a parallel Government.
Legalizing drugs is not a panacea.
Nothing is a panacea.
Putting people in jail for growing, selling and using pot is just a damned stupid thing to do.
I welcome this de-escalation in the war on drugs but I'm still going to put my dog away if I ever see a bunch of unmarked, black SUVs come racing into our cul-de-sac.
ST and I are in complete agreement. Edutcher and I disagree, respectively.
"Legalizing drugs is not a panacea."
Of course nobody would argue it is, but if your goal was a panacea, then closest you can get would be a nation that respected the spirit of the U.S. Constitution and the liberty of individuals.
Then smoke a little weed, and you might just think you got that panacea, unless it was that new chronic stuff that makes you all paranoid that the cat is implanted with an NSA listening device.
The pothead vote, I'd bet, is split 50/50 between the left and the right.
Those good old boys in the deep South are growing some of the best bud on the market.
They've got decades, if not centuries, of experience in illegal substances and smuggling borne of their involvement in the white lightning trade.
bagoh20 said...
Mark Steyn pointed out recently that it has taken longer to get Major Hasan to trial than it took to defeat the Japanese after Pearl Harbor. We are pretty slow at everything today, and it has nothing to do a task's difficulty.
This largely has to do with all the kowtowing to the enviro-nuts over the last 40 years and the fact the Federal and state benches have been packed with Lefty activists.
Shouting Thomas said...
Legalizing drugs is not a panacea.
Nothing is a panacea.
Putting people in jail for growing, selling and using pot is just a damned stupid thing to do.
We criminalize a drug that's acculturated for 400 years (tobacco) and want to legalize a drug far more dangerous (cannabis) that's only been acculturated for 40.
Tell me again what's stupid.
Misusing the word "respectively" can be a sign of brain damage caused by marijuana abuse.
We haven't really criminalized tobacco.
We've just attached huge sin taxes to its production and use.
Same approach seems sensible for pot.
@Meade
I have many Lawnmower Man friends among the hippies in Woodstock.
They mow the grass and they smoke it. Goes together.
I'm suspecting you've had an acquaintance with the Loco Weed. Fess up!
Well, all the tobacco-growing states are going to have a new cash crop. I remember a farmer in N. Carolina years ago quoted in Newsweek (iirc) talking about the taxes the govt gets off his tobacco: "Hell, they oughtta have the 82nd Airborne down here protecting my fields--they're the next best thing to Fort Knox." LOL!
About time. It is difficult to see how the war on drugs has been good for anyone other than large government bureaucracies, the ones with more guns than sense.
We criminalize a drug that's acculturated for 400 years (tobacco) and want to legalize a drug far more dangerous (cannabis) that's only been acculturated for 40.
I've never heard of anyone dying from marijuana use. I actually know people who died from smoking tobacco.
I don't know of any medical costs passed on to the public that come from smoking marijuana. Tobacco on the other hand has been very expensive. The only costs I'm aware of associated with pot are the costs we bear for World War D, the War on Drugs.
Bago, this wasn't intended as a racial topic, but as I understand it there was/is different sentencing guidelines for crack and regular cocaine. Crack being more likely to be used by blacks, etc. Nick?
I am not a huge fan of any common recreational drug in that they all have some addictive qualities and some negatives associated with routine use. But, creating a vast militarized police state to deal with the problem created a much bigger problem with even more negatives.
The way tobacco and drunk driving have been handled over the last thirty years is a better way to go. Both were public health problems that were treated through education and some public shaming.
I never drove drunk but I used to smoke regularly. It was definitely easy to quit when everyone else was quitting.
"Both were public health problems that were treated through education and some public shaming."
This goes a bit far. It's kind of pitiful to see workers huddled outside in all weather, taking their smokes in public view. On the other hand, creating a room with an effective filtration system would be cost prohibitive.
And I think 25% of the adult population still smokes? That's rather high.
Isn't changing the law the province of the legislative branch?
This just looks like another example of arbitrary and capricious enforcement of the laws from a lawless administration.
I have a close family member who has used drugs since the age of 12.
Now at age 52, this person is unable to manage a life within polite society. If it were not for the goodness of his wife (soon to be ex), his parents and the government, he'd be a crazy homeless man on the street.
He never went to jail, even though he has been caught dealing with the big boys. (I could go on and on but I'll stop there)
The drug world is not glamorous-- it ruins lives.
"I understand it there was/is different sentencing guidelines for crack and regular cocaine."
I think that made sense. Powder cocaine use is much less dangerous to the society. It's generally used by people who don't regularly break other laws, and it's much less addictive, but crack is extremely addictive, and is surrounded by the worst criminal activity we have including a lot of very bad people.
Yea, that may end up breaking down racially, but so does everything related to violent crime. Violent crime is just very unevenly distributed racially, so that racism charge is always an easy one to use.
Crack lives in the violent crime world, and makes it worse. Powder cocaine generally lives in the more mainstream society and makes that worse. Cocaine generally messes up the user's life, while crack does that faster, and then quickly moves on to others around them. They just are not the same thing, despite being the same chemically. It's kind of like the difference between having a little cayenne pepper with dinner or spraying the guests with bear repellant.
I've never heard of anyone dying from marijuana use. I actually know people who died from smoking tobacco.
Agreed. People who smoke marijuana tend to be recreational smokers. Meaning that they smoke enough to get high and enjoy the feeling, eat some food....eat a LOT of food, listen to music etc. Cigarette smokers seem to smoke All the time. Not just at recreational moments. Quantity of consumption.
I do believe that young people should not be smoking pot as it does affect their mental facilities.
The idea from the old days that pot would send you into a death spiral of other drugs.....aka: pot is an entry level drug ....is really not true for most people. The death spiral into extreme drug use is more a part of the culture you are living in where such use is common or encouraged.
In my area of the world, growing pot and using pot is really quite common. To criminalize a person who is using a small amount of marijuana for recreational purposes on the same level as someone who is using crack or is actively tied to the drug cartels, makes no sense whatsoever.
We already have a problem in California in our prison system where we are being forced (by the courts) to release seriously dangerous criminals due to overcrowding. If those harmless, low level occasional users are not incarcerated, we wouldn't be releasing the B&E types and those with violent offenses..... and not see the big rise in property crimes that we have now. This is a REALLY big problem, more than if someone is smoking a joint.
I don't have a problem with small time pot users. If your intoxicant of choice is marijuana over alcohol, knock yourself out.
But that's not the story here. The DoJ is talking about all restricted drugs and specifically discussed cocaine. They are also not talking about private growers and users, but distributors. So this isn't about poor users going to jail for a dime bag. This is about the DoJ avoiding a national discussion and debate in the changing laws, as in done in the Legislature, regarding mandatory minimums for drug dealers.
And these aren't mandatory minimums set by some red state like Florida. These are federal mandatory minimums. While I'm not a fan of mandatory minimums; removing them is a discussion to have in changing the law. The President and AG aren't interested in that discussion. They rather just operate by fiat.
I understand fully that recreational use certainly shouldn't land people in jail. I have this idea that it is an exaggeration that our jails are filled with small-time marijuana smokers. But that could be my paranoid kitty meowing in my ear.
I also understand fully that drug use can ruin the brain. That's why I say that taking away the penalties is not a panacea. But I also agree that we should all have the freedom to ruin our own lives. But there is a cost: Ruined families, destroyed children etc...
AprilApple said...
The drug world is not glamorous-- it ruins lives.
But all of this occurred under the current set of draconian laws. It's hard to imagine things would have been worse under more liberal laws.
Drug addiction is a mental health problem. There are no easy answers or treatments for mental health problems.
"I have a close family member who has used drugs since the age of 12."
You really can't use the word "drugs" to cover all things called "drugs".
I also know people who have used "drugs" their whole life, and you can't tell anything different about them from someone who has not. I would suggest that the majority of people who have used "drugs" their whole life are like that.
Some people use the wrong the drugs, and some use less dangerous drugs poorly. This is also true of the legal ones like alcohol, tobacco, diet supplements, and painkillers.
I'd bet that your friend if not addicted to drugs would be incapacitated by alcohol instead. Most of the people I've known who were ruined, and I've known quite a few, were destroyed by their use of alcohol - not the alcohol - but their use of it. I drank right along with them, and ended up completely different, and far from incapacitated. They used differently.
Thanks for your thoughts, bago. I understand your distinctions, but I thought cocaine was pretty addictive, too. And that there's a fair amount of drug trafficking related to it.
Caffeine is a drug. I use it daily.
Obama has been hittin' the bong again.
Duuuuuuuuuude!
If you want to start talking about productivity lost, and lives ruined, for no appreciable gain, then you want to start talking about outlawing blogs.
Bagoh - agree about the alcohol component.
ARM -
Drug addiction is a mental health problem. There are no easy answers or treatments for mental health problems.
Yes.
Bagoh-
Certainly everyone has different chemistry, and certainly some people who use recreationally know when to slow down or how to hide it.
My family member suffers from delusions, is a sociopath and a liar, and the drugs and alcohol have played a major role in all of it.
Its tough coming off of caffeine, if I dont get my coffee daily I get a rip roaring headache. Even chocolate won't cut it.
Coffee makes me more productive.
....He's also a big fan of conspiracy theories and Michael Moore. Need I say more?
Inga-- I too share an addiction to caffeine. Drink plenty of water to offset the dehydration. And stay off the streets. That's what I do.
Deborah, A history of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines starts w/ the Boston Celtics. In 1986, the Celtics made Len Bias, a b-ball star from Maryland, their first round pick. He was going to replace Larry Bird. Shortly after being drafted #1, Bias celebrated by smoking crack. His heart exploded and Bias died. Crack had been around for a few years, but this was the first time it came into the mainstream.
Tip O'Neill was the Congressman for Boston and Speaker of the House. He is the man who coined the phrase, "All politics is local." O'Neill's constituents were outraged their #1 pick died from using crack. With midterm elections coming, and w/ the influence from his constituents, O'Neill went to his cocktail buddy, Reagan and proposed tough Federal mandatory sentences for crack. Tip saw this as a way for Dems to campaign they were tough on crime. Reagan was happy to oblige. So..when folks say "Those damn Republicans" regarding those draconian mandatory sentences, remind them of Tip and his alcoholic, red nose!!
The Federal Sentencing Guidelines became a clusterfuck. My bride was assigned to the guideline expert for her office. It was almost as complicated as the tax code. Few, if any, defense attorneys really understood them and judges needed to call her in on cases to explain them. I'm not just blowing her horn, it was that way in virtually all offices. The experts for each office attended many training seminars.
While crack was the reason for these draconian sentences[25 years for first offense sale of 6 rocks!!], other drugs were included. Cannabis was the next horrible guidelines. Plants were measured and computed into weight using arbitrary measurements. I won't go into details but a plant that might yield 5ozs. would be said to be a pound. And, if even a legal hunting rifle was in the residence of a person growing, add 10-15 years. People, w/ no criminal record, were getting 40-50 mandatory sentences. That is a major reason for the explosion in Federal prosecutions and a horrible overcrowding in prison
The Supreme Court finally overturned these guidelines, ironically from a decision that started in the Western District of Wi., my wife's office.
I am tough on crime as is my bride. These sentencing guidelines were patently unfair and ill conceived. That nightmare has finally ended.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta was anti cannabis as far as it being a medicine. He ahs changed his mind. Gupta did a 1 hour special last night that folks need to watch prior to saying there is no medicinal value.
What year were they overturned, Nick?
The libertarian in me supports this policy. MJ IMO is not nearly as bad as alcohol. Getting the munchies and getting horny is not nearly as bad as getting in your SUV with load on. Will take MJ over alcohol anytime. full disclosure: I drink and have never smoked pot. But I have seen the results of both.
But April, what if I have to solicit some man to buy me a Starbucks? It's the mean streets of coffee addiction.
AprilApple said...
My family member suffers from delusions, is a sociopath and a liar, and the drugs and alcohol have played a major role in all of it.
In my observation there are two broad phases of drug use. There is the experimentation phase, usually undertaken in the teens or early twenties, where a large number of people try a wide range of drugs, many very addictive, without much long term negative outcome for them. For these people the drug laws can be a disaster, entrapping them into the legal system for no good reason.
A subset of people who experiment, however, become chronic addicts. Arguably prohibition helps these people but my guess is that most, if not all, of the addicts would have displayed some form of mental illness eventually, with or without the drugs. The promise and vigor of youth tends to hide a lot of problems.
I came across an interesting case a while back. A very accomplished MD/PhD and sportsman became hopelessly addicted to opiates late in life (50's). Ruined his life. There is something in addicts that is very difficult to reach once they get addicted, no matter how disciplined or accomplished they can be in other areas of their life. I can't see the police/legal system being the right way to approach this problem and the results largely speak for themselves.
Bagoh - That Mark Steyn piece is worth reading. I linked it yesterday.
The idea that Newsweek attempted to make combat fatigue excuses (he was never in combat!) for Hasan brings my blood to a boil.
one suspects (OK, me) that the big tobacco companies are trying to figure out how to get into the MJ market. nahh-that couldn't be.
Now if big tobacco gets into the MJ at least they will produce better looking joints. There may be some aesthetic benefit.
If easy access to marijuana and porn were going to subvert society, they would have long since subverted society......I know a guy who smokes marijuana every day and knows that it is not addictive. His life isn't in the hamper. He has a steady job and only one divorce, but neither can you claim that steady use has improved his life to any visible extent. There is quite a lot, pro and con, about the drug debate that is pure bull......There are lots of people who are hellbent on ruining their lives. They don't need drugs to do so, but it makes the trip easier and more economical.
Icepick said...
Isn't changing the law the province of the legislative branch?
Remember how little concern [literally none] the leftists expressed over this gross violation of constitutional authority. It'll be interesting to compare to their complaints about Congress refusing to fund Obamacare.
Will it be ok then to sell drugs within 500 feet of a school?
It's Eric Holder. Watch what he does, not what he says.
Deborah, It was a 2005 case titled, US v Booker.
Stan:
I've been told a lot of things about pot, But i've come to find out a lot of those things aren't true! So i don't know what to believe!
Randy Marsh:
Well, stan, the truth is Marijuana probably isn't going to make you kill people.
And most likely isn't gonna fund terrorists.
But, well, son, pot makes you feel fine with being bored.
And it's when you're bored That you should be learning some new skill Or discovering some new science or being creative.
If you smoke pot you may grow up to find out That you aren't good at anything.
Stan:
I really, really wish you just would've told me that From the beginning.
AprilApple said...
But there is a cost: Ruined families, destroyed children etc...
There's no doubt drugs have extremely negative effects in many circumstances. But having or not having drugs is not the choice we face. The choice is whether we have a war on drugs. And every single example of the negative effects of drugs has ocurred during the WOD.
RogerJ, The tobacco companies have been buying up property in Mendocino County, Ca. for some time. That is a perfect climate and where much of the medicinal cannabis sold in Ca. is grown. Tobacco is for legalization. The liquor, Big Phama, and public sector employee unions are opposed. Quite a big gun battle, don't you think?
"There are lots of people who are hellbent on ruining their lives. They don't need drugs to do so, but it makes the trip easier and more economical."
In my opinion, this is the problem with addictive drugs, and I would not include pot in those. For people who make bad decisions and who have weak self-control, drugs just feel too good, and are too easy to use. They are traps for some people. Weak traps that most can walk in and out of without any issue, but which some people just can't. They go deeper and deeper. These people will usually have issues with life anyway, but drugs are just devastating to them.
I also know people who have been addicted to things like opiates their whole life, yet they led positive productive lives, raised kids, had careers. They wanted to quit, but could never do it for more than a couple years, and always go back. I don't know what to say about them. If they had a choice to be drug free from the beginning, they would probably have a hard time deciding. The truth is that drugs feel good, people enjoy them. They often enjoy the culture that goes with it too. They would like to not be addicted and dependent, but they would probably still want to have had the good times.
People who have never used drugs tend to see it as always some horrible experience, but the truth is there is also a lot of fun and good times involved. If it was all bad there would be no addicts.
Thanks, Nick, great info.
Cannabis is harmful for kids under 16. Their brain growth is @ a critical phase before age 16, and cannabis has been shown to lower IQ and cognitive abilities as years progress. After age 16, studies show no such effects in those categories. So, parents need to let their kids know this, and be VERY VIGILANT in having them not use cannabis. Now, a few experiments aren't going to make your kid Mortimer Snerd, but regular use before 16 will.
Nick--was in Seattle late June for my son's wedding--was priceless to see the seattlites protesting "big tobacco" interfering with their home grown stuff. And yes--it will be one hell of a gun battle.
Me? I favor better looking joints, so big tobacco gets the nod.
Shouting Thomas said...
We haven't really criminalized tobacco.
We've just attached huge sin taxes to its production and use.
Same approach seems sensible for pot.
A lot of places have banned smoking. I'm sure people like Nanny Bloomberg attach some kind of penalty.
phx said...
We criminalize a drug that's acculturated for 400 years (tobacco) and want to legalize a drug far more dangerous (cannabis) that's only been acculturated for 40.
I've never heard of anyone dying from marijuana use.
Worse on your heart, lungs, etc., than tobacco.
And then there's the chromosome damage.
Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The Lefty culture seems to have pushed marijuana over tobacco the last 50 years or so.
Wonder why?
ndspinelli said...
Dr. Sanjay Gupta was anti cannabis as far as it being a medicine. He ahs changed his mind. Gupta did a 1 hour special last night that folks need to watch prior to saying there is no medicinal value.
I've said lots at TOP, but I'll begin saying it here.
There's no value in marijuana as a pain killer, etc., that you can't get with legal medicines IV-push.
Like it or not, that one's an urban legend.
PS Considering how quickly the media made it unfashionable to smoke after about 4 centuries of it being so, one wonders how long it would take to do the same for marijuana.
bagoh, As Chris Rock says, "You don't need to "PUSH" drugs. They sell themselves. Why do rich white kids drive into the 'hood w/ their parent's Mercedes? Ain't no black dealers going to the suburbs." The problem w/ drugs is so much credibility is lost when you tell kids drugs make you feel bad. They make you feel good! Now, have a heroin addict tell kids how unbelievable that first use was, and how you spend the rest of your life chasing that feeling, and never getting it again. You only get pain, prison, etc. Tell kids the fucking truth, and then they'll understand. And, all drugs are different. Opiates are the biggest drug problem in this country. They're legal.
Edutcher, Did you watch the show?
"Legal" pain meds are the worst drug scourge in this country.
No one dies from cannabis overdose. People die every 16 minutes from opiate od's.
Gupta thought like you did, ed. He read, studied, and changed his mind based on science, not urban legend.
ndspinelli said...
No one dies from cannabis overdose. People die every 16 minutes from opiate od's.
Never said they did, but nobody ever died from smoking too many cigarettes at one sitting, that I heard of, either.
And The Blonde can give you an hour off the top of her head (I speak from firsthand experience) about why marijuana isn't as great therapeutically as it's being cracked up to be.
PS Considering how quickly the media made it unfashionable to smoke after about 4 centuries of it being so, one wonders how long it would take to do the same for marijuana.
Reason has an interesting article about those hoping to cash in on legalization through drug treatment centers. They believe once legal the insurance industry will be forced into coverage. The perfect policy for the government is legal but unapproved. That allows them to tax the actvity and direct the proceeds to very appreciative cronies.
I'd be happy with a bit of pot smoking in my green-leafy suburb, provided that it freed up the police to spend more time chasing the oxycontin and heroin dealers to get them the hell out of my community. Oxy and heroin are saturating the suburbs, in case you haven't heard.
edutcher said...
PS Considering how quickly the media made it unfashionable to smoke after about 4 centuries of it being so,
You mean right after it was shown that smoking causes lung cancer, prematurely ending millions of lives
The terrible thing about mind altering drugs is that they deadend the user's life. In what sense? In the sense that reality is replaced by a continual pursuit of the heightened state, the nirvana the drug makes available to the addict. Inevitably the replacement of reality becomes the rejection of reality for what? for a sensation. Of course the standard liberal response, based on the liberal mentality, is so what? What's so great about reality? What's so great about living, with all its frictions and failures, compared to entering a dream? In any case, WE, the liberals have that messy reality covered. And so the world is lost to the addict. There's no convincing liberals that this is a terrible loss and waste. But the sane know it is.
ARM way upthread @12:03 makes a point few people picked up on, namely that for many the answer to drug and/or alcohol addiction is to cure an underlying mental problem like clinical depression, bi-polar disorder, etc. Most mistake cause and effect, i.e., they are not depressed because of drugs or alcohol (although alcohol is a depressant)they do the drugs & alcohol because they are depressed in the same way that soldiers have traditionally self-medicated against the stress of combat by the heavy use of tobacco. As such, the "cure" rate for addicts/"substance abusers" is low because even most health professionals are not treating the underlying causes.
From Holder's speech:
"It’s time – in fact, it’s well past time – to address persistent needs and unwarranted disparities by considering a fundamentally new approach."
Says the AG in his fifth year in office.
What could be his motivation?
Oh, I see:
"We also must confront the reality that – once they’re in that system – people of color often face harsher punishments than their peers."
"They [mandatory minimums] – and some of the enforcement priorities we have set – have had a destabilizing effect on particular communities, largely poor and of color."
How about getting rid of mandatory minimums on everything altogether and actually get prosecutors to get off their lazy asses and actually prosecute instead of making plea deals and using mandatory minimums as bargaining chips. Prosecute people on the evidence presented. the truth means nothing in court. As a defendant, the deck is always stacked against you.
Methadras said...
How about getting rid of mandatory minimums on everything altogether and actually get prosecutors to get off their lazy asses and actually prosecute instead of making plea deals and using mandatory minimums as bargaining chips
Maybe if we saw a drastic decrease in the number of drug cases the legal system could perform better.
"We also must confront the reality that – once they’re in that system – people of color often face harsher punishments than their peers." -- Holder
What is it about black people? We have to change rules for them, offer them a step up with affirmative action programs and generally, not hold them accountable for any wrong-doing that they do.
Bringing slaves to this country was the worst idea ever.
I blame the people who sweep Obama into office the first time.
I forgive though.
One can't help but notice that those people still think they were righteous.
AnUnreasonableTroll said...
PS Considering how quickly the media made it unfashionable to smoke after about 4 centuries of it being so,
You mean right after it was shown that smoking causes lung cancer, prematurely ending millions of lives
No, I mean in the 90s and 00s, when the campaign to ban it from public places started.
AllenS said...
"We also must confront the reality that – once they’re in that system – people of color often face harsher punishments than their peers." -- Holder
What is it about black people? We have to change rules for them, offer them a step up with affirmative action programs and generally, not hold them accountable for any wrong-doing that they do.
They want to do that in high school disciplinary cases, too.
Being black means you have the chains of slavery on you for eternity, you know. You are so haunted you are incapable of doing anything useful in society.
This is a good step, but our friends the cowards and the politicians need to simply legalize marijuana. Right now.
That should be "Our friends, the cowardly politicians need to legalize it now."
phx wrote: This is a good step, but our friends the cowards and the politicians need to simply legalize marijuana. Right now.
Why not go further and actively promote it? Get some real money behind it -- make it the next most important civil right after SSM. I'm sure your guy Sullivan is on board.
I'm sure your guy Sullivan is on board.
I don't know anything about "Sullivan."
You're one of the guys from Althouse who always had a grudge against me, aren't you? You know, whatever I post, you're always going to have an (incorrect) answer.
nobody ever died from smoking too many cigarettes at one sitting
I know it has happened, but the story I recall goes back to days before HTML. There used to be a fad of seeing how many cigarettes one could smoke at once. Some guy put a bunch (two packs?) of cigarettes in his mouth at once and lit up. Probably died of excessive smoke inhalation.
However, in trying to find the story; I did find several articles on nicotine poisoning. Apparently there are lethal doses (as in overdosage) of nicotine, but the nominal cause is not smoking. Causes come from insecticide, handling tobacco as a worker, or ingestion of tobacco.
Otherwise, I accept your point.
I blame the people who sweep Obama into office the first time.
I forgive though.
I don't.
We're still five million full-time jobs short of where we were six years ago, and it isn't getting better. The working age population has expanded a good deal in that time. This in the fifth year of an economic "recovery".
And last year Obama voters said this for shit economy is what they want more of. Unforgivable, especially given that every one of them are sanctimonious shits in public while celebrating the destruction of the middle class in private. Evil bastards, every last one of them, supporting failure for the nation because it leads to success for the party.
There are several conversations going on here at once. The one about mandatory sentencing, whether it should be federal or on a case by case basis. I think it should be on a locally and case by case basis to avoid having minimal USERS, not dealers...users, from being put into jail like gang members or violent criminals. We are criminalizing way too many trivial offenses.
Personally, I think that marijuana should be legalized and lightly controlled, just like alcohol. Keep it out of minors possession and keep it regulated as to when and where it should be used......like alcohol where drinking and driving are illegal. Legalizing something doesn't mean no restrictions at all.
The other conversation seems to be about addiction and the harm that drugs do to people. First of all not ALL people become addicted to drugs or alcohol or even cigarettes. Are we going to make rules for ALL of society because some people are weak or can't control themselves? That is the Nanny Bloomberg method.
Look.....we can't save everyone. Some people are determined to ruin themselves. It is too bad....but you know what? IT ISN'T MY FAULT and it isn't my personal problem or my goal to save the few by oppressing the many. It is sad the fall out of addiction onto the children and family members of the afflicted. However, the cure for addiction isn't to Nanny and Lord it over everyone else. Remove the children from the situation. Churches and charities used to perform this function. Let the addict self destruct or institutionalize if necessary to protect US, not them. Darwin.
5, 4, 3, 2, ...
DBQ, Brava! Some folks think in terms of a perfect world. In a perfect world no one would use mind altering substances. However, I am a lover of history and a pragmatist. We know from archeology and history that people have been using mind altering substances for ~15,000 years. Of all the mind altering substances currently used, including tobacco, cannabis has the lowest rate of addiction, ~9%. The addiction is psychological, not physical. And, unlike most addictions, the success rate is pretty high in breaking the addiction. It is, of all the other mind altering substances, the least harmful to the user, and society. People have always altered their consciousness, they do now, and always will. Like in all matters, the politicians are way behind the public. And, as Haz just said, let's focus on heroin and other hard drugs. Let's make every effort to keep our kids off of cannabis before age 16. If cannabis were legal, I would much rather had my kids using it instead of alcohol when they were 18 years old.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
Personally, I think that marijuana should be legalized and lightly controlled, just like alcohol. Keep it out of minors possession and keep it regulated as to when and where it should be used..
When I was in high school it was easier to get pot than it was beer. All the money wasted and deaths incurred in this fight and pot's easier to get than something sold within a few miles of virtually every home in the country.
Age restrictions aren't perfect, but if they're more effective than a blanket ban the blanket ban isn't worth anything at all, much less the incredibly high proce we pay to maintain it.
Nick and Bunny - I'd still penalize in some manner the use of pot in schools (or on the way to school). Public high schools don't need any more stoners or drunks or addicts than they already have (data supplied by my HS teacher spouse).
And I'd let employers enforce termination for failure to pass a drug screen.
Last, I'd want laws the severely punish the sale of any amount of marijuana to anyone under the age of seventeen.
I'd let employers enforce termination for failure to pass a drug screen.
My wife's employer will terminate employees for failure to pass a drug screen for nicotine. In short, her employer decided to no longer employ smokers.
That's the beauty of a non-centralized method of control. If people took issue with this employer, they could go to another. When the federal government sets policy for all then your only choice is to leave the country.
Marshal said...
Maybe if we saw a drastic decrease in the number of drug cases the legal system could perform better.
I certainly hope so, but clearly this is a monetary request. Cities everywhere are spending a shitload of money on prosecuting small time dealers, users, growers. There is a huge industry around militarizing police forces nationwide. You can see it daily now. No knock warrants, even a 3rd amendment violation, which I never thought I'd see in my lifetime if ever, disproportionate responses to crime, etc. Meanwhile, the average regular tax paying citizen is being treated like a criminal for just waking up and living because they aren't being squeezed of enough taxes and are treated like nothing more than a zoo animal in a pen that has to be herded. Heaven help any of them if and when a prosecutor sinks his claws into them. They are done for.
The place where I used to work, and a place near here has policies that if you are a so-so worker and you accidently hurt yourself, or hurt someone else, or wreck a bunch of stuff, you will be given a drug test, and fired immediately if you don't pass.
I wish coke was still cola,
And a joint was a bad place to be.
And it was back before Nixon
lied to us all on TV.
Leland said...
My wife's employer will terminate employees for failure to pass a drug screen for nicotine. In short, her employer decided to no longer employ smokers
I assume this is driven by medical cost responsibility. If so it's another negative to employer based health insurance.
Methadras said...
There is a huge industry around militarizing police forces nationwide. You can see it daily now. No knock warrants, even a 3rd amendment violation, which I never thought I'd see in my lifetime if ever, disproportionate responses to crime, etc. Meanwhile, the average regular tax paying citizen is being treated like a criminal for just waking up and living because they aren't being squeezed of enough taxes and are treated like nothing more than a zoo animal in a pen that has to be herded.
All true, so why not reduce their justifications for such actions? Corporate drug dealers, like Target, don't require guns to defend themselves and so aren't likely to kill cops. In return cops almost never initiate military style attacks on a Target Pharmacy.
You folks can either click on Meade's link or click on mine and get the full Merle experience.
I assume this is driven by medical cost responsibility.
Indeed it is.
I'm leery of the way this is being done, but happy it IS being done.
Aridog said...
5, 4, 3, 2, ...
Misfire!
Good for him.
The comment made by a society with an incarceration rate as high as ours, with as high a percentage of that rate comprised of non-violent "offenders" as ours, is nothing other than self-parody.
Look, whether or not drugs should be criminalized, or to what extent, is one issue. Whether or not the executive branch should be deciding what is and isn't legal is another. The issue of governance here is far more important than which mind-altering substances are legal and which are not.
Well, that's one vote for letting the President do whatever the fuck he wants as long as he's a Democrat. There were at least three more up top. And another 65,000,000 plus last year.
I've said lots at TOP, but I'll begin saying it here.
There's no value in marijuana as a pain killer, etc., that you can't get with legal medicines IV-push.
Professor-Doctor Edutcher speaketh!
There's no improved value and plenty of increased harm with legal medicines "IV-push", as the man without a plan says. You can ask any physician as abuse of prescription narcotics is now one of the biggest legitimate headaches and newest top priority of the DEA, as well as any minimally intelligent and sincere observer.
Ed has not only absolutely no clinical training or understanding whatsoever, he hasn't bothered to even make himself aware of any.
Maybe this is obvious to the crowd here, but I iterate it for the sake of just basic public decency when it comes to the sort of dangerous misinformation campaigns as this newest one that he's diddling around with.
How do you even know that there is a law against which Holder is acting, Icepick? Do you?
Bush used to attach unconstitutional "signing statements" to the legislation he approved, pretending that his personal interpretation would trump the courts'. His team also advanced the concept of the "unitary executive".
Every executive branch has its own policies for how it decides to prioritize its actions. I hate to tell you that, but barring any evidence that Holder's "brainstorming" invitation is illegal, I'm going to forego your almost decidedly non-legally informed (and no less political) opinion here on this.
Whether or not the executive branch should be deciding what is and isn't legal is another.
The executive has every right to decide what is and is not a sentencing priority. The legislature doesn't get sole say over how full the prisons need to be stocked, regardless of how underfunded it's left them. Regardless of how many other crimes are left unpursued, unprosecuted and unaccounted for.
Only an incompetent executive would pretend that he should have no say in that.
The only way your thinking works is if the legislature decides that executives get no autonomy or discretion in deciding how to prioritize certain law enforcement needs over any others. The legislature doesn't, for instance, typically say that sodomy laws should have had equal enforcement priority over murder laws. But if it was stupid, it might.
The excerpt says it was an overhaul of "policy", not law. Do you know the difference between those things?
There's no value in marijuana as a pain killer, etc., that you can't get with legal medicines IV-push.
A few obvious values:
1. It is cheaper.
2. It is safer.
3. It doesn't require training to administer.
marijuana growers are so used to doing it under that table - good luck finding and taxing them.
How do you even know that there is a law against which Holder is acting, Icepick? Do you?
He will be enforcing laws in an arbitrary manner. Is that consistent with the laws as written?
From the Washington Post article on this story:
Holder is calling for a change in Justice Department policies to reserve the most severe penalties for drug offenses for serious, high-level or violent drug traffickers. He has directed his 94 U.S. attorneys across the country to develop specific, locally tailored guidelines for determining when federal charges should be filed and when they should not.
So, there will now be 94 ways in which the same law is interpreted. Whether a defendant gets the book thrown at them or not is dependent solely by which US Attorney prosecutes their case. You can end up in a federal-pound-you-in-the-ass-prison in one locale and not even get prosecuted in another, based solely on the whims of your local US Attorney. How is that not arbitrary and capricious? How is that rule of law?
ARMan @ 12:40
I think you've got that right.
Certain personality types are more susceptible to addiction.
"There is something in addicts that is very difficult to reach once they get addicted, no matter how disciplined or accomplished they can be in other areas of their life. I can't see the police/legal system being the right way to approach this problem and the results largely speak for themselves."
But April, what if I have to solicit some man to buy me a Starbucks? It's the mean streets of coffee addiction.
You don't need to sell me on the benefits of breast-flashing to get a free latte. Whatever it takes.
Ah April, I like the way you think, except for your politics, we could be bosom buddies.
He will be enforcing laws in an arbitrary manner
That's the norm for federal drug laws.
A few obvious values:
1. It is cheaper.
2. It is safer.
3. It doesn't require training to administer.
Um, it also works better in a number of cases and reduces narcotic dependence or narcotic burden. But what do I know? I am just a simple clinician. Libertarians determine everything in this country.
So, there will now be 94 ways in which the same law is interpreted.
I would think that since prison overcrowding and case overload affects local jurisdictions, localized enforcement priorities might be a good thing. But then, I am assuming that the existence and administration of prisons and courts require finite material resources that are still crucial in the pursuit of justice.
Whether a defendant gets the book thrown at them or not is dependent solely by which US Attorney prosecutes their case. You can end up in a federal-pound-you-in-the-ass-prison in one locale and not even get prosecuted in another, based solely on the whims of your local US Attorney. How is that not arbitrary and capricious? How is that rule of law?
Federalism is part of rule of law in this country and doesn't allow for merely different state and local legislatures, or different executives, but discretion in administering to those different needs differently by the same federal agency. I don't think it's outrageous to imagine that some vice issues differ in severity from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. It just doesn't seem right that each US attorney would have to focus the same level of attention and priority level to the exact same issues when their existence and impacts would be expected to vary somewhat from district to district.
The Drug War was a pretty fascist endeavor in general, wasted money, and refused to distinguish between vice and offense in treating any citizen who could potentially self-harm as equally dangerous to all. Moving away from the one-size-fits-all approach that perpetuated that government menace seems entirely rational and I have little regret about the federal executive acknowledging that more progressively than a do-nothing Congress that is increasingly at odds with more and more state legislatures by the year.
Federalism is part of rule of law in this country and doesn't allow for merely different state and local legislatures, or different executives, but discretion in administering to those different needs differently by the same federal agency. I don't think it's outrageous to imagine that some vice issues differ in severity from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. It just doesn't seem right that each US attorney would have to focus the same level of attention and priority level to the exact same issues when their existence and impacts would be expected to vary somewhat from district to district.
Federalism, the limiting of the Federal Government (with the exception of National issues like WAR and foreign relations etc) and subordinating the Federal to local/State control is integral to the foundation of this country.
I am in total agreement with your above paragraph. What may be considered outrageous in one area of the country could be a ho hum event elsewhere. Centralized, top down government rarely works for long. People eventually tire of being dictated to by people who have no concept of "What's The Matter With Kansas" or the insularity of the self appointed elites.
Local needs....local solutions.
When I used the broad category "drugs" I include as it's #1 component - marijuana. Marijuana, cocaine, and alcohol as the main cocktail of "drugs". Others I'm sure like acid, mushrooms and possibly meth.
The drug use at an early age to now have stunted his emotional maturity. He is less mature than and immature 15 year old boy. Lives in his head has no idea how to take responsibility for his actions and the actions are at times horrendous.
This person also sells marijuana for a large part of him income. He does it all under the table and is not revealing that income to the state or feds.
btw- I voted YES on legalization of marijuana in the state of CO. I don't have a problem with the basic idea and as a libertarian at heart, I get it.
Plus I share the same gripe everyone seems to acknowledge: we don't need small time pot smokers filling our over-crowded jails. (not that they do)
However, I know full well that legalization isn't the grand bargain the left promise. Young people will have greater access. As stated by mr Motorhead - soft drug use leads to harder drug use. Hanging around drug users does that. Is this what you want for your children? Because sit back and watch as the Hollywood-left promote pot smoking to our youth culture.
Then there's the tax idea. A great idea! Suddenly all sorts of tax revenue will be generated.
... Still waiting.
I'm embarrassed to mention this but I happened to watch an episode of Two and a Half Men a few months ago. The show guest starred Mary-lou Henner (sp?)
Anyway -her role was to make pot smoking cool and mock republicans-- like a good Hollywood leftist propagandist.
Prepare for more of that crap.
Inga- Life it good now that caffeine is legal.
AprilApple said...
marijuana growers are so used to doing it under that table - good luck finding and taxing them.
Upon a time this was true of alcohol producers also. But once alcohol was legalized customers preferred the safer legal channel, so producers legalized or went out of business. Illegal alcohol production is now negligible. Institutions evolve according to the circumstances they face.
AprilApple@7:57am/
"Prepare for more of that crap."
As if we haven't seen its precursor in the now decade(s)-long campaign to portray homosexuality as the "new normal" on TV. (Think GLEE , The Modern Family, Will & Grace and Brothers and Sisters.)
This reminds me of something that happened during the Carter administration. Due to budget cuts, they said, the Air Force stopped or delayed updating Technical Orders and Aircraft Maintenance Regulations. I was in charge of Quality Assurance for a MAC wing. My inspectors were trained to rely on these publications as the absolute gold standard of professional practice and procedure. When I complained to MAC HQ, the reply was 'just ignore the out-of-date ones, we won't write you up for it'. HQ did not seem to understand how this attitude undermined the rank and file's faith in the system. Why should they follow any orders or regulations, if that's the way things are.
They Obama administration is doing the same thing to our laws and our Constitution.
Changing the rules on drugs may be a good idea, but this is not the way to do it.
Post a Comment