Land of the free

[Malcolm Wright]

rehab typically is offered several times before a prison sentence is imposed. So, for these individuals- what makes you think the decriminalization would change their behavior, when prior attempts at rehab coupled with the threat of imprisonment did nothing to stop them? Why not just continue on? What you are saying might work with some people- but most drug users and abusers never end up in prison. We are talking about the worst of an already sorry lot.

I can see both sides of the argument.
You're right - SOME of the folks in the stats are people who have shown time and time again they'll sink to the bottom of the barrel.

HOWEVER I think you are ignoring part of Kellyb's point, which is that with decriminalization, part of the force pushing them to the bottom gets removed. If you can get a job more easily, and not be stigmatized as a criminal by society for your affliction alone - a sizable part of the pattern that pushes one back to the drug is removed. You need to acknowledge this.

M

[Pho King]

What exactly is it about the populations of Portugal and the United States that leads you to this feeling?



Calm down, sissy. Just because you've been beaten up doesn't mean you have to cry. Just screaming out that you don't feel good about changing the law isn't a "deconstruction" of anything.



Cute. Now, do you have anything of substance to offer?



So, do you have any statistics to back up your feeling that decriminalizing drugs wouldn't change anything?

Any evidence at all? I know the idea frightens you, but do you have any rational basis for it?



Red herring. Kind of typical, but yes, it probably would. I saw that happen in the beltway a few years ago. A massive power fault killed all the traffic lights in one part of the beltway, and they stayed down for two days, and for two days it was joyful driving to work. Not a good statistical sample, but you have no evidence to couter it. Just your fear of a lack of controls on public behaviour, which is what you're whole tantrum is about.



Hahaha. Says the guy in the middle of a hysterical breakdown in fear of a lack of formal controls on the evil poor people.



Most likely. He wouldn't need to if the market for cocaine weren't so dangerous, the prices would drop considerably. Cocoa isn't that expensive. The price problem is law enforcement.



But those countries allow people to be freer, and their freedom to choose for themselves is the basis of their improvement in social stability. It's true for all people: More freedom creates a better society, although people like Phool are scared to death of the idea, and will always be there to fight it.

So sensitive, so dramatic.....I can practically feel that foot stomping, like My Cousin Vinny's girlfriend when she's bitching about her biological clock. My biological clock is ticking like this (cue the stomping) and the way this case is going I aint ever gonna get married....
In your rampant and debilitating hysteria, you have, once again, jumped to some conclusions that are not based in fact. I have said nothing about my opinion with regards to whether our drug laws should be changed, or even completely dismantled. I have demonstrated to a rational mind- which explains your refusal to accept it- that much of what you rely on in formulating your beliefs really does not support your belief. And really what I have done is to demonstrate how little thought you put into your argument. You are a coiled up ball of emotion- and as such you base your argument on faith. Faith that the stat you are relying on to bolster your argument tells the entire story about the individuals from whom that statistic was generated. Faith that the statistic adequately takes into account other factors involved in the journey from user to convicted felon to prisoner.

There are plenty of reasons to advocate a complete reform of our drug laws. You just fail to articulate any of them.

[Malcolm Wright]

No. Would crack users stop engaging in assault, strong arm robbery, theft, murder, prostitution if there was no penalty for possession of crack?

99% no, is my guess. But you are choosing the most extreme form of addiction to make your point.

M

[Pho King]

I can see both sides of the argument.
You're right - SOME of the folks in the stats are people who have shown time and time again they'll sink to the bottom of the barrel.

HOWEVER I think you are ignoring part of Kellyb's point, which is that with decriminalization, part of the force pushing them to the bottom gets removed. If you can get a job more easily, and not be stigmatized as a criminal by society for your affliction alone - a sizable part of the pattern that pushes one back to the drug is removed. You need to acknowledge this.

M

Malcolm- ALL of the folks in the relevant stat- the 51% number cited by Boo between gasps- have shown time and again that revert to criminal behavior. They are not pushed to the bottom. They swim down to it. When referring to the prison population- you are not referring to your average drug user.

So you decriminalize it. What is it about making an addictive drug legal that will result in it being used less? Especially by those wound up in it enough to commit crime to support their habit? How is it that decriminalizing it will alter their behavior?

And what exactly is meant by decriminalizing drugs? No penalty for possession or use? Transportation? Manufacture? Sales?

The numbers used by Boohoo refer to federal prisoners. major players in the drug trade. with lengthy criminal histories. not users, which are who the decriminalization crowd is usually seeking to assist.

[Pho King]

99% no, is my guess. But you are choosing the most extreme form of addiction to make your point.

M

Admittedly. But people that end up doing time for drug offenses are either major players, or they are these very extreme cases.

[BooRadley]

Admittedly. But people that end up doing time for drug offenses are either major players, or they are these very extreme cases.

Based on what evidence do you keep shouting this? What is the basis for this feeling?

[Pho King]

Based on what evidence do you keep shouting this? What is the basis for this feeling?

Now see, maybe this is a teaching moment for you. My statement was not based on feeling. It was the statement of an informed declarant. And the sources I use to back up that statement are not only my many years of involvement with both state and federal courts, but a knowledge of both state sentencing guidelines generally, and Federal Sentencing guidelines.

[BooRadley]

Now see, maybe this is a teaching moment for you. My statement was not based on feeling. It was the statement of an informed declarant. And the sources I use to back up that statement are not only my many years of involvement with both state and federal courts, but a knowledge of both state sentencing guidelines generally, and Federal Sentencing guidelines.

So, you're making it up is what you mean? Do you ahve some reliable, statistical study that backs up your feeling that 99% of drug offenders are irredeemable, or not?

My guess is not. It's "a gut feeling" that you're quite content with, so you don't look any further.

[Pho King]

So, you're making it up is what you mean? Do you ahve some reliable, statistical study that backs up your feeling that 99% of drug offenders are irredeemable, or not?

My guess is not. It's "a gut feeling" that you're quite content with, so you don't look any further.

Do you have some reliable quote that backs up your feeling that I believe 99% of drug offenders are irredeemable? Or is this yet another example of your emotions overtaking your judgement? I have actually been referring to a much smaller sampling: those drug offenders with enough of a criminal history to actually serve time in prison. "irredeemable" is, in any event, your word.

[Malcolm Wright]

Admittedly. But people that end up doing time for drug offenses are either major players, or they are these very extreme cases.

No. I refuse the notion that someone convicted of 3 felonies during the course of his or her lifetime, the last one being a drug offense, is anywhere near beyond redemption. It is the nature of maturation to have a more rebellious youth, during which it is easy to rack up a couple of felonies, before mellowing out somewhat. That a drug charge perhaps 10 or 20 years later should then land the person in jail for 25 years to life, and have them labelled by the likes of you as hopeless, extreme cases, is unacceptable.

Even beyond the three strikes laws, are you telling me that a pot dealer busted several times for possession with intent to distribute, will be let off the hook more than the first time? I don't think you are. So a recidivist pot dealer ends up in jail, part of the stats, costing us tax dollars and receiving opportunity and instruction via his fellow inmates towards a life of further, more diversified crime.

Many pot dealers merely sell to smoke for free, and supplement their revenue a little. Criminalizing them is stupid.

M

[BooRadley]

Do you have some relaible quote that backs up your feeling that I believe 99% of drug offenders are irredeemable? I have actually been referring to a much smaller sampling: those drug offenders with enough of a criminal history to actually serve time in prison. "irredeemable" is, in any event, your word.

Calm down. You don't have to throw a tantrum every time you get asked for facts to support your feelings. In any event, you keep arguing that the people in prison for drug offences "are overwhelmingly people that have shown themselves to be incapable of living freely in society," yet you have absolutely nothing to back that up except your feelings towards people who were unfortunate enough to get busted with some smoke.

Do you have anything to back up the arguments that you're making, that the people in prison for drug offences would have somehow ended up there anyway? That, "Doing away with the drug laws would have little effect on the underlying behavior of the users." Any evidence at all for this, aside from your gut feelings about it?

Honestly, any evidence at all to back up the wild assumptions you make about 1/20th of the US population? I know that you personally feel that these people are basically scum, but do you have any evidence that, aside from crimes related to obtaining and using drugs, they would necessarily end up back in prison?

[Pho King]

No. I refuse the notion that someone convicted of 3 felonies during the course of his or her lifetime, the last one being a drug offense, is anywhere near beyond redemption. It is the nature of maturation to have a more rebellious youth, during which it is easy to rack up a couple of felonies, before mellowing out somewhat. That a drug charge perhaps 10 or 20 years later should then land the person in jail for 25 years to life, and have them labelled by the likes of you as hopeless, extreme cases, is unacceptable.

Even beyond the three strikes laws, are you telling me that a pot dealer busted several times for possession with intent to distribute, will be let off the hook more than the first time? I don't think you are. So a recidivist pot dealer ends up in jail, part of the stats, costing us tax dollars and receiving opportunity and tuition via his fellow inmates towards a life of further, more diversified crime.

Many pot dealers merely sell to smoke for free, and supplement their revenue a little. Criminalizing them is stupid.

M

Oh Malcolm. You have been hanging out with Boo too much. At what point did you, too, jump the shark and come to the conclusion that I believe anyone is beyond redemption?
Felony convictions are not that easy to rack up, malcolm.

In Arizona-typically the most severe state as far as criminal penalties are concerned, a prison sentence for a first-time distribution charge is very, very unlikely. Of course, a first time offense for dealing becomes much, much more serious if there are prior felonies. A second conviction for dealing is still probation eligible.
Pot dealers that sell smoke to pay for their own always have a get out of jail free card. There are not very many of them in prison.

[Going Postal]

So, you're making it up is what you mean? Do you ahve some reliable, statistical study that backs up your feeling that 99% of drug offenders are irredeemable, or not?

My guess is not. It's "a gut feeling" that you're quite content with, so you don't look any further.

Actually, they don't know.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/23/he...pagewanted=all

AA isn't talking. Spa type places thinks it's bad for business to publish results. Read it.

[kellyb]

Pot dealers that sell smoke to pay for their own always have a get out of jail free card.

Evidence?

Here's mine:

http://reason.com/blog/2010/08/12/li...-ounce-of-medi

[Pho King]

Calm down. You don't have to throw a tantrum every time you get asked for facts to support your feelings. In any event, you keep arguing that the people in prison for drug offences "are overwhelmingly people that have shown themselves to be incapable of living freely in society," yet you have absolutely nothing to back that up except your feelings towards people who were unfortunate enough to get busted with some smoke.Do you have anything to back up the arguments that you're making, that the people in prison for drug offences would have somehow ended up there anyway? That, "Doing away with the drug laws would have little effect on the underlying behavior of the users." Any evidence at all for this, aside from your gut feelings about it?

Honestly, any evidence at all to back up the wild assumptions you make about 1/20th of the US population? I know that you personally feel that these people are basically scum, but do you have any evidence that, aside from crimes related to obtaining and using drugs, they would necessarily end up back in prison?

You are not very good at this Boo. I have informed you that individuals in prison have very long histories of criminal behavior behind them. Convictions. Or they are violent. They are not just people "who were unfortunate enough to get busted with some smoke". They are repeat criminals. Unrepentant. My younger brother is currently doing time-his first stint. For Aggravated DUI. His crimes are too many to list, but he has a prior AGG DUI, a felony endangerment charge, and a prohibited possessor violation. A CLass4 felony with 2 prior felonies carries a presumptive term of 14 years in prison. He is doing 8 months. Why? Because the prosecutor dropped the historical priors, recognizing that my brother is an alcoholic. His case, and his sentence, are typical.

My understanding of the prison population comes from working in the courts, understanding sentencing laws, court procedure. Knowledge. Not some dumb-ass statistic that can be tweaked a million different ways.

"do you have any evidence that, aside from crimes related to obtaining and using drugs, they would necessarily end up back in prison?" I am gonna let that particular bit of pablam you regurgitated alone. It answers itself.

[Malcolm Wright]

Oh Malcolm. You have been hanging out with Boo too much. At what point did you, too, jump the shark and come to the conclusion that I believe anyone is beyond redemption?
Felony convictions are not that easy to rack up, malcolm.

In Arizona-typically the most severe state as far as criminal penalties are concerned, a prison sentence for a first-time distribution charge is very, very unlikely. Of course, a first time offense for dealing becomes much, much more serious if there are prior felonies. A second conviction for dealing is still probation eligible.
Pot dealers that sell smoke to pay for their own always have a get out of jail free card. There are not very many of them in prison.

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/150935...th_pot/?page=2

This article contradicts you on several points.

M

[kellyb]

Actually, they don't know.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/23/he...pagewanted=all

AA isn't talking. Spa type places thinks it's bad for business to publish results. Read it.

A lot of them are almost certainly scams. Whatever they're doing in Portugal certainly seems to be working, though. I seriously doubt a heroin junkie in Portugal is fundamentally than a heroin junkie in the US, too.

[kellyb]

My understanding of the prison population comes from working in the courts, understanding sentencing laws, court procedure. Knowledge. Not some dumb-ass statistic that can be tweaked a million different ways.

.

"Take my word for it" is not generally considered an acceptable debate technique. Just FYI.

Your allergy to presenting actual evidence is becoming seriously suspicious.

[Pho King]

"Take my word for it" is not generally considered an acceptable debate technique. Just FYI.

Your allergy to presenting actual evidence is becoming seriously suspicious.

Do you need me to repost the link to AZ's sentencing guidelines? Or can you do that on your own. The aversion to some of looking at evidence- hard evidence, not statistical bullshit- is seriously supicious.

[Pho King]

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/150935...th_pot/?page=2

This article contradicts you on several points.

M

Actually, all the article does is render an opinion on the toughest states, of which he lists AZ as five. You are smarter than that.