Should be amusing

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
G

Guns Guns Guns

Guest
Naturally, because it's an Obama cabinet officer that supports this proposal, I fully expect the board's war-on-drugs warriors to turn themselves inside-out in their attempts to condemn what they usually call for.




"Thousands of federal prisoners could have an average of three years shaved off their prison terms to correct wide disparities in sentences between crack and powder cocaine offenders, under a proposal supported by Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr.


More than 12,000 federal prisoners — nearly 6% of the inmates in the badly overcrowded U.S. prison system — could be affected.




Holder recommended Wednesday that the early release be applied to only 5,500 prisoners, whose crimes did not involve the use of weapons and who did not have long criminal histories. The releases could begin later this year.




Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said he was "disappointed by the Obama administration's position" on early releases for drug offenders and indicated he might push Congress to intervene if the U.S. Sentencing Commission votes to make the changes this month that would take effect Nov. 1. "It shows they are more concerned with the well-being of criminals than with the safety of our communities."



Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said it was a "bad idea" and that "I strongly disagree" with Holder's recommendations."




http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-holder-crack-20110602,0,5716668.story




Now, let the spin-cycle from the "libertarians" begin....




I'm sure the first thing they'll bitch about is that this proposal won't release users and dealers of their preferred drug.
 
\(\(\(\/)/)/ said:
Naturally, because it's an Obama cabinet officer that supports this proposal, I fully expect the board's war-on-drugs warriors to turn themselves inside-out in their attempts to condemn what they usually call for.

"Thousands of federal prisoners could have an average of three years shaved off their prison terms to correct wide disparities in sentences between crack and powder cocaine offenders, under a proposal supported by Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr.

More than 12,000 federal prisoners — nearly 6% of the inmates in the badly overcrowded U.S. prison system — could be affected.

Holder recommended Wednesday that the early release be applied to only 5,500 prisoners, whose crimes did not involve the use of weapons and who did not have long criminal histories. The releases could begin later this year.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said he was "disappointed by the Obama administration's position" on early releases for drug offenders and indicated he might push Congress to intervene if the U.S. Sentencing Commission votes to make the changes this month that would take effect Nov. 1. "It shows they are more concerned with the well-being of criminals than with the safety of our communities."

Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said it was a "bad idea" and that "I strongly disagree" with Holder's recommendations."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-holder-crack-20110602,0,5716668.story

Now, let the spin-cycle from the "libertarians" begin....

I'm sure the first thing they'll bitch about is that this proposal won't release users and dealers of their preferred drug.
Click to expand...

After sexists and racists it will be interesting to see how many "drugists" we have in here. :)
 
Great, I suppose this will be 12,000 more on the welfare rolls until they re-offend and get sent back. I guess it’s all a matter of which budget you want to support them out of, welfare or prisons, at least with prisons they aren’t harming innocents.
 
For the last few decades, activists have been warning that the severe U.S. drug sentencing policies instituted in the '80s and '90s have disastrous human consequences.[FONT=georgia, serif]
[/FONT]

Starting with the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, the trend in federal U.S. sentencing policy was up, up and away: It established mandatory minimum sentences for all levels of drug offenses and, specifically, a 100-1 sentencing disparity between powder cocaine and crack cocaine...




Attorney General Eric Holder has backed the beginnings of a plan to further fix the broken sentencing system. In a new sentencing reduction scheme before the House of Representatives, federal prisoners already sentenced for crack cocaine offenses could be awarded an average sentence reduction of three years.




If adopted, this plan would go the rest of the way to ease the baffling sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine. Over 12,000 prisoners could be effected by this change. In support of the reductions, Holder said, "There is simply no just or logical reason why their punishments should be dramatically more severe than those of other cocaine offenders."


This change in policy would be a start, but it isn't enough. First, sentencing guidelines are just that -- guidelines. Unlike mandatory minimum sentencing, another broken drug policy that has been subject to searing scrutiny in recent years, judges are not required to abide by guidelines. They merely serve as suggestions for certain possible sentences within a range of minimums and maximums. While some judges may be anxious to mete out shorter sentences, many others may take no heed of the change in guidelines. Furthermore, there is simply no logical reason why people whose sole offense is the use of illegal substances should be subject to prison terms at all.

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]




[FONT=georgia, serif]http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/06/02/crack_sentence_reduction_open2011/[/FONT]
 
SmarterThanYou said:
If it took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, how come the DEA can now ban a naturally growing weed with the stroke of a pen?
Click to expand...

actually.....the DEA cannot ban anything. congress drafted the laws, the president signed the law and now we have banned substances, and the DEA enforces those laws.

making a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol was one of the dumbest moves our government has made. the way our laws and constitution are set up, i don't believe we need to a constitutional amendment to ban certain substances.
 
Yurt said:
actually.....the DEA cannot ban anything. congress drafted the laws, the president signed the law and now we have banned substances, and the DEA enforces those laws.

making a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol was one of the dumbest moves our government has made. the way our laws and constitution are set up, i don't believe we need to a constitutional amendment to ban certain substances.
Click to expand...
what power in the constitution gives congress the power to ban marijuana?
 
Yurt said:
currently, the commerce clause because our supreme court has basically given congress a blank check with which to legislate nearly everything using the commerce clause
Click to expand...

firstly, the supreme courts ruling in wickard and raich are so ungodly unconstitutional that every justice that voted to uphold that monstrosity of a ruling should be tarred, feathered, drawn, quartered, and have their heads stuck on a pike in front of the supreme court building for eternity.

secondly, how does growing and using for own personal use constitute commerce? and don't give me that crap about how it's effect on intrastate commerce applies to interstate commerce.

to seriously entertain that the founders intended to give congress that kind of power that the USSC supposedly says they do, would allow congress to mandate that we buy health insurance and plant petunias in our front yard every easter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top