Why is the President commuting sentences of cocaine traffickers?

[Press Virginia]

Carmel Bretous – Miami, FL
Offense: Conspiracy to import at least five kilograms of cocaine; importation of five kilograms of cocaine; conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms of cocaine; possession with intent to distribute five kilograms of cocaine; Southern District of Florida
Sentence: 235 months’ imprisonment; five years’ supervised release (November 6, 2001)
Commutation Grant: Prison sentence commuted to expire on July 28, 2016

Also commuted the sentence of a guy caught smuggling 55lbs of Coke into the country

This is on top of the crack dealers that were pardoned in December.

I thought it was going to be people unjustly imprisoned for a little bit of weed

[global1]

1. What About Don Siegelman And Rod Blagoivich Mr. President?.......

Does anyone think that before he leaves office he'll commute their sentences?

[Press Virginia]

2. They'd certainly be more deserving

[Ilsa]

3. I didn't think about RB, but he should free Don S. nt

[tritsofme]

15. Blago is a low-life criminal. Obama would never pardon or commute that scumbag.

[Safe as Milk]

128. Siegelman? Of course. Blagojevich? Not so much...

[Warren DeMontague]

136. Blagoivich?

....really?

[JackInGreen]

152. Don yes

Blagojevich did what he did, he can serve his sentence

[Dont call me Shirley]

182. Yes Mr President, Free Don Siegelman!

[Flyingbird5066]

275. Siegelman should be commuted and rove imprisoned in his place

But why the sympathy for blagovich

[morningfog]

4. Because it's the right things to do.

I hope he keeps releasing prisoners of the war on drugs.

[Press Virginia]

5. Cocaine? How about Heroin?

These drugs destroy people

[Logical]

7. Maybe they served long enough???

[morningfog]

12. Our drug sentencing laws are draconian.

For all drugs.

[Press Virginia]

14. For pot, yeah

[morningfog]

16. For all drugs.

All drugs should be safe and legal. Some drugs should be regulated as a public health issue. There should be safe, clean treatment and dosing centers for all addictive drugs.

No one should be sentenced to years for selling or using drugs, except maybe some pharmaceutical executives who have killed thousands by knowingly flooding the streets with addictive and lethal drugs. Opioid addiction and overdosing is a national crisis because of pharmaceutical opioids. They are deadly products that are over prescribed and taking too many lives. Far more that cocaine.

[Press Virginia]

17. So the government should feed the addiction?

The FDA approved those drugs, you think they'll do better with cocaine and heroin?

[Warren Stupidity]

21. We have these draconian laws on the books right now

We've been locking people up incessantly for 40 years and we are in the midst of an opiod fatality crisis.

IT IS NOT WORKING.

Would you like to know what does work, or are you just stuck in the war on drugs rut?

[Press Virginia]

23. Pot is one thing

cocaine, meth and heroin is different.

[jeff47]

29. No, they really aren't.

The abuse rate of all of those drugs has remained the same. Even after the massive war on drugs, and the multiple times we have ratcheted up the war on drugs.

Throwing them in prison does not work.

[Warren Stupidity]

56. It is a belief fixation. Data doesn't matter.

One of the successes of the war on drugs has been to convince many people that the only option is the war on drugs.

Note that this person was entirely incurious about what does work.

[Press Virginia]

77. Opioid addiction bad

Cocaine, meth or heroin addiction good.

Got it

[CreekDog]

104. And with that statement, let me say "Welcome to DU"

...and enjoy your stay.

[Press Virginia]

108. Whatever

[StevieM]

255. I'm confused. Press Virginia has 491 posts. Isn't that beyond the margin of welcoming people to DU?

eom

[CreekDog]

290. well they joined in February

but if you're making the point that they don't seem new at all, I guess I have to give you that one.

[Press Virginia]

60. Oh, prison doesn't work

Should we release murderers and rapists too?

[jeff47]

65. Prison deters some acts. It does not deter others.

If the war on drugs worked, the massive spending and incarceration increase would have reduced the rate of drug abuse.

It didn't.

Prohibition does not work, whether it is alcohol or cocaine.

[Press Virginia]

68. Prison doesn't deter people from drug trafficking?

You're conflating drug users with drug dealers

[jeff47]

72. Because drug dealers exist in a vacuum?

Drug dealers only exist because there are drug users. If incarcerating drug dealers worked, that would reduce drug users because they would be unable to obtain drugs.

Instead, you can get drugs delivered to your house faster than a pizza.

Prohibition does not work, whether it is alcohol or cocaine.

[Press Virginia]

74. So we legalize drugs

As a means to reduce users?

Brilliant

[jeff47]

76. We legalize drugs in order to reduce the cost of treating users

as well as mitigating the harm of, by and to those users.

Throwing people in prison costs LOTS more, and has utterly failed to reduce the number of drug users.

Prohibition does not work, whether it is alcohol or cocaine.

[Press Virginia]

100. How are you going to reduce users by making the drugs theyre addicted to

Cheaper and more available?

[hobbit709]

140. What happened in those countries that did?

you might check the statistics before you get so outraged.

[Press Virginia]

144. Which countries legalized heroin, meth and coke

Name a country where trafficking in these drugs isn't a crime

[hobbit709]

145. There are those that decriminalized possession.

and you can blame Harry J. Anslinger for the fact that it is a crime.

[Press Virginia]

147. Possession of 5 kilos, in an airport

working with 3 other people?

[hobbit709]

148. 5 Kilos is penny ante level smuggling.

There were times in the 70's when I saw more than that in one afternoon.

[Press Virginia]

149. It's not the sign of a recreational user

[hobbit709]

150. so why your big outrage?

[Press Virginia]

151. Well, I expected a bunch of people who were

In federal prison for possession or selling a few 8 balls, which is who we were told were victims.
I didn't expects traffickers, some of which were prior felons and in possession of guns to be the overwhelming majority of those whose sentences were commuted

[hobbit709]

153. you don't know much about the real world out there.

Once you get a record for anything you're pretty much fucked over by the system in terms of getting ahead.
People do what they have to do to survive.

[Press Virginia]

154. Whaaaaat? You mean when you're convicted of a crime

It should be okay to be a drug smuggler?

[hobbit709]

158. Must be a nice view up there on your moral high horse.

you obviously don't know what some people face and how their decisions are made by their situation.

[Press Virginia]

159. I know if you're caught with over a million bucks

Of coke in your suitcase you're not just some guy trying to keep the heat on in his apartment

[hobbit709]

161. How do you get a million bucks?

you are obviously believing the police statements of street value instead of actual money involved. I remember a coke bust here in Austin where they said the street value was umpteen mill. I got out my calculator and figured out that the amount and value stated came out to $942/gram. At that price it should have got you off just looking at it. To make that kind of money it would had to have been cut so bad no one would have bought it. At the time street prices for high quality coke was about $90-100/gram.
I'd bet the guy might have made $25K if the deal went through.

[Press Virginia]

167. a kilo runs about 50k

Before its cut.

[hobbit709]

168. Can't cut coke the way you do heroin.

$30-35K is what I hear.

nobody in this town would buy stomped on coke except for tourists.

[Press Virginia]

172. anybody buying it is lucky to get anything above 75% unless you have a great hookup

boric acid and baby laxatives are commonly used to cut it.

[hobbit709]

173. I must have known the right people.

Back in my coke days the stuff I was getting was running at least 85%.
Of course that was 30-40 years ago. But from what I hear good coke is plentiful and cheaper than ever, which tells you how well the drug war is working.

[BigMin28]

304. Portugal

Ten years ago Portugal decriminalized
the use of all drugs. The results are quite good. I don't know about their trafficking laws.

[Press Virginia]

305. Decriminalization isn't legalization

Trafficking and dealing are still crimes

[Ed Suspicious]

81. God no. We treat use by correcting the conditions that lead to drug abuse

and addiction. Then, science we know there will still be drug addicts, we ensure those people have access to the health care they need.

[Press Virginia]

85. By legalizing all drugs?

[Ed Suspicious]

91. We stop punishing addicts. What is the goal of punishing addicts?

Is it to put a dent in illicit drug use rates?

If it is, it ain't working.

Addiction rates have remained steady since before the beginning of the war on drugs approach.

There has to be a better way. Heck, doing nothing equals the impact on addiction that the current punative system offers. Doin nothing is a hell of a lot cheaper. We might as well.

[Press Virginia]

101. No one is talking about punishing addicts

The president commuted sentences of traffickers

[Press Virginia]

264. The people whose sentences were commuted are DEALERS

you know, the people who supply the addicts

[LadyHawkAZ]

262. Oh for the love of

Here:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Countries+with+decriminalized+drugs

Jeez.

Feeding the for-profit prison industrial complex is not the way to handle the drug problem.

[Press Virginia]

265. Which "for profit" federal prison were any of these people serving in?

And these weren't people in FEDERAL PRISON on simple possession. They were dealers and smugglers.
Quite a few ran crack rings, 14 were also sentenced as felons in possession of a firearm.

[LadyHawkAZ]

268. What effect did this have on drug use? nt

[Press Virginia]

269. The same effect as putting a murderer or rapist in prison

if the addicts are the victims, the suppliers and dealers are the victimizers....

[LadyHawkAZ]

272. And how has that worked out so far?

Any effect at all on the demand? Any? At all?

[Press Virginia]

274. so we can't punish the addicts because they're victims

and we can't punish the suppliers, who create and supply the addicts?

Why have laws against anything?

[LadyHawkAZ]

276. Somebody didn't read the linked material, did they? n/t

[Press Virginia]

277. Nevermind, I found it....and it doesn't address the issue

decriminalizing possession.....the people whose sentences were commuted were convicted of smuggling and distribution.

Do you understand the difference?

[LadyHawkAZ]

278. Yes, I understand

I understand that giving people 20+ years in prison for nonviolent offenses, comparable to what we give murderers and far more than we give to rapists, is not the way to address the problem of drug addiction.

This was the point that people in this subthread has been trying to impress upon you, that others in the thread have been trying to impress upon you, and that answers your question posed in the OP- why Obama is commuting sentences for traffickers. Call me when you catch up and we'll discuss.

[Press Virginia]

279. You know how you get 20 years for smuggling

and distribution? Get convicted a second time for smuggling and distribution.
You're conflating users with the suppliers

[Press Virginia]

282. Here's one of those "second chancers" who had his sentence commuted

Last edited Fri Apr 1, 2016, 01:41 PM - Edit history (3)

3 felony distribution convictions and he's back on the streets for his "second" chance.

http://m.yourhoustonnews.com/archives/rosenberg-crack-cocaine-dealer-gets-life-in-prison/article_0847c298-7e20-5616-ac36-b469093dd2ee.html?mode=jqm


And there's these poor victims who were so deserving

Nathan Carter – Memphis, TN
Offense: 1. Possession of 121 grams cocaine with intent to distribute; possession of
65.8 grams cocaine base with intent to distribute; Western District of Tennessee

2. Supervised release violation (attempted possession with intent to distribute cocaine); Western District of Tennessee

Sentence: 1. Life imprisonment; 10 years’ supervised release (April 30, 1999)

2. 30 months’ imprisonment; 18 months’ supervised release; $10,000 fine (May 5, 1999)

Amos Embress Cyrus – Hemingway, SC
Offense: Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribution of cocaine base; supervised release violation (Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and possession with intent to distribute cocaine); District of South Carolina
Sentence: 300 months’ imprisonment; five years’ supervised release (June 21, 1996)

Ian Kavanaugh Gavin – Eight Mile, AL
Offense: Possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine; using/carrying a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense; Southern District of Alabama
Sentence: 180 months’ imprisonment; eight years’ supervised release (March 8, 2007)

Isadore Gennings – Cincinnati, OH
Offense: Conspiracy to distribute cocaine; interstate travel in aid of racketeering enterprises; possession with intent to distribute in excess of five kilograms of cocaine; Southern District of Ohio
Sentence: 240 months’ imprisonment; 10 years’ supervised release (March 14, 2002)

Lamont Durville Glass – Knoxville, TN
Offense: Possession with intent to distribute cocaine base; felon in possession of a firearm; Eastern District of Tennessee
Sentence: 262 months’ imprisonment; eight years’ supervised release (January 9, 1998)

Jerome Harris, Jr. – Mobile, AL
Offense: Possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine; possession with intent to distribute cocaine; use/carry/possess a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime; Southern District of Alabama
Sentence: 300 months’ imprisonment; 10 years’ supervised release (November 7, 2006)

Vernon Harris – Philadelphia, PA
Offense: Possession with intent to distribute; possession of firearm by convicted felon; Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Sentence: Life imprisonment; 10 years’ supervised release (October 25, 1996)

Tommy Howard – Cincinnati, OH
Offense: Use of a firearm during the commission of a drug trafficking offense; Southern District of Ohio
Sentence: 292 months’ imprisonment; five years’ supervised release; $1,000 fine (January 8, 2004)

Anthony Lee Lewis – Tampa, FL
Offense: Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and crack cocaine; distribution of crack cocaine; possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine; convicted felon in possession of a firearm; possession with intent to distribute cocaine; Middle District of Florida
Sentence: Life imprisonment (September 16, 19

Eric Smith – Memphis, TN
Offense: Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base; unlawfully maintaining a residence for the purpose of distributing and using cocaine base; Western District of Tennessee
Sentence: 360 months’ imprisonment; five years’ supervised release (April 24, 1995)

Ernest Spiller – East St. Louis, IL
Offense: Distribution of crack cocaine (two counts); maintaining a crack house; possession of a firearm in further of a drug trafficking crime; felon in possession of a firearm; Southern District of Illinois
Sentence: 352 months’ imprisonment; three years’ supervised release; $1,000 fine (August 3, 2000)

Michael A. Yandal – Murray, KY
Offense: Possession with the intent to distribute approximately 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing cocaine base; possession with the intent to distribute marijuana; possession of a firearm in the furtherance of a drug trafficking crime; Western District of Kentucky
Sentence: 195 months’ imprisonment; five years’ supervised release (April 24, 2007); amended to 180 months’ imprisonment (December 11, 2007)

[LadyHawkAZ]

283. Good for Obama

since you're determined to ignore everything said to you on the subject, we'll just leave it at that.

[Press Virginia]

284. I ignore what isn't based on facts or reality

Maybe you're fine with a crack house or a meth lab being run out of your neighbors house. Maybe you think felons with guns, trafficking drugs is no big deal. And maybe you have no problem with the destruction of minority communities from the distribution of drugs.
I don't see it that way

[LadyHawkAZ]

285. Ah, you're claiming that the reporting from Portugal

that I linked you to showing the correct way to address the addiction problem is fake? Please demonstrate your reasoning with citations.

[Press Virginia]

286. Once again you're conflating addiction with smuggling

and distribution.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7731045

[LadyHawkAZ]

291. You need to re-read this subthread. Carefully.

Let's start with this post, since this was the person that dragged addiction into it, and scroll down

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027727310#post5

to right about here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027727310#post85

which was why I entered the conversation.

You could also try looking up the major issues with mandatory minimum sentencings and disproportionate targeting, the origin, effects and costs of the war on drugs, Gary Webb, the Afghani poppy trade, or even something simple like the average terms for murder and rape vs. mandatory minimums for intent to sell. I can Google it for you, if you like. People have been explaining this stuff to you all day long, perhaps it wouldn't hurt if you maybe looked into it. Call me when you catch up.

[Press Virginia]

292. People, like you, who've never read the actual sentencing guidelines

but whine about 20yr sentences? Or maybe it's the other people, like you, who think the president just commuted the sentences of some poor addict caught with a small amount of heroin instead of repeat offenders with multiple felony convictions for manufacture, distribution and trafficking of large quantities of heroin, meth and Coke? Maybe the guys who were running the crack houses, while being felons in possession of a gun, were the good nonviolent armed felons selling crack?
I'm sure you might find the guys who were convicted of felony distribution of cocaine, while on supervised release from their most recent felony distribution conviction, worthy of another chance to prove they didn't deserve that life sentence they earned?
I'll bet the guy who was convicted of taking more than 5 kilos AND A GUN across state lines, as part of drug ring will be happy to have his license back.

[LadyHawkAZ]

293. I know what they got convicted of

it just doesn't change my opinion of the laws they went in under, any more than it would for sentencing of doctors under an anti-abortion law. When the law itself is unfair, the application is unfair, and the sentencing is unfair, then the incarceration is unjust and should be overturned.

Just out of curiosity, what site do you hail from?

ETA and yes, people exactly like me who at bare minimum know about Portugal.

[Press Virginia]

294. Abortion is legal, drug trafficking is not

The law is inherently unfair because it imposes harsh penalties for participants in an inherently violent business?

What is the proper punishment for one who deliberately creates addicts and profits from the misery and, many times, the murder of others?

And Portugals decriminalization of drugs for personal use is as relevant, to a discussion about freeing drug traffickers, as the color of the sky would be.

[LadyHawkAZ]

296. Abortion wasn't always legal, and still isn't in a good chunk of the world

20+ years in prison for performing abortions- yes or no?

Weed is illegal in most places, still. 20+ years in prison for selling weed- yes or no?

What is the proper punishment for one who deliberately creates addicts and profits from the misery and, many times, the murder of others?

Vote them out.
Or in the case of some pharmaceutical companies, regulate their products more strictly and raise their taxes.
(20+ years in prison for working for Pfizer- yes or no?)

And Portugals decriminalization of drugs...

Don't ask for info if you don't want the info.

Press Virginia (529 posts)
74. So we legalize drugs
As a means to reduce users?

Brilliant

Press Virginia (529 posts)
100. How are you going to reduce users by making the drugs theyre addicted to
Cheaper and more available?

[Press Virginia]

297. Now you're playing in the land of make believe

while confusing decriminalization with legalization.

How come no one, on the recent list was convicted of trafficking weed? If there are so many low level weed dealers in federal prison why can't the president find them?

Why is every single person, on the list a crack, meth, heroin and Coke dealer with multiple convictions for trafficking in those drugs or using a gun in their non violent crime?

As for Pfizer...how much more regulation do they need? The can't sell a single drug that isn't approved by the government for sale to the public.

[LadyHawkAZ]

310. ...

Nice Dodge!

[Press Virginia]

311. If only it were a dodge

[Flyingbird5066]

298. Agreed

[MH1]

299. Loss of the ability for obscene profits from drug trafficking, will deter drug trafficking.

Those obscene profits go away when drugs can be obtained through legit channels. Also most people will try to avoid addiction if they have access to non-addictive alternatives, or will seek treatment when it starts messing with their lives too much.

[Press Virginia]

300. No, the profits just to someone else

they'd still be obscene.
Could you tell me about all the non addictive alternatives to Meth, Heroin and Crack?

[Silver_Witch]

112. Have you done any of these?

How then are they different?

[Press Virginia]

114. Pot isn't addictive and won't kill you

Cocaine and heroin ODs are every day occurrences

[Silver_Witch]

119. Tell that to my ex-husband...

who could not get out of bed without smoking a joint first. And when he lost his job for repeatedly smoking at work. It might not have killed him (he died of lung disease), it certainly ruined his life.

Had it been legal back then - he might not have suffered so...and if Cocaine, Heroin, Acid and Extasy were legal people could use the benefits medical supervision and hopefully safe withdrawal.

[Press Virginia]

121. How do you plan to medically supervise heroin or cocaine or meth?

Meth can be cooked in a basement.
The cartels will still bring Coke and Heroin into the country.

[Silver_Witch]

124. If it is legal..

there will be no "cartels"....

And you have heard of doctors right - that is how you medically supervise.

[Press Virginia]

127. Says who? The cartels could simply sell a higher purity, especially since they

no longer face criminal charges from the production and distribution of their product....of course the government would need suppliers so their distributors had product

[Johnny2X2X]

194. The cartels make money because of prohibition

They charge $30-40K for something that should cost dollars to produce because of the risk that prohibition adds. The cartels love prohibition and actual donate to lobbies who advocate for keeping it in place. Legalize cocaine completely and the risk and money is gone. Heck, I bet it could be produced in the US for next to nothing, just import the raw materials and manufacture it in the safest possible way. The users? Cheap and safe cocaine that they can get without having to deal with criminals.

In the end, you'll have the same people using the drugs as you do now.

[Press Virginia]

195. cheap and safe? Where pray tell are they going to find this cheap and safe cocaine

from the Cartel that Cares?

[Johnny2X2X]

232. The cartels will be gone.

US manufacturers would simply buy or grow cocoa leaves. They make this stuff in a jungle using mostly villagers, I takes almost no skill to make. Bring in into an industrial setting and you could manufacturer it for pennies a gram.

[Press Virginia]

236. It's already being produced at industrial rates at pennies a gram

and it would continue to be made with a higher purity that anything the government would allow.

[Press Virginia]

197. oh yeah....I've heard of the growing opioid problem too

now how could something like that happen when the drugs are medically supervised?

Who is going to supply the drugs for distribution, if not the Cartel?

[dsc]

220. I can give you meth

due to its manufacturing process which is itself dangerous. But the rest, drugs are drugs.

[morningfog]

43. Yes! People don't die from cocaine overdoses.

And when people die from heroin overdose, it is most often due to purity variance and the addition of other substances. If it were regulated, doses would be consistent and safe, there wouldn't be various chemicals cut into it.

If you want to see a dangerous drug, look and OxyContin and the other opioids. They are addictive and deadly. Users can build up a tolerance to lethal levels.

[Press Virginia]

54. How do you plan to regulate the dosage and purity of these drugs?

Oxy and other opioids are prescribed. Doctors who over prescribe should be held accountable

[morningfog]

55. Purity is easy if it's regulated.

Purity goes a long way towards helping someone manage their dose.

[Press Virginia]

58. How are you going to regulate every sale?

Meth can be cooked up in someone's basement. Cocaine and heroin will still be brought in and sold by street level dealers

[jeff47]

84. Same way we regulate every sale of NyQuil.

Cocaine and heroin will still be brought in and sold by street level dealers

Why?

They cost more and will be selling an inferior product.

[Press Virginia]

88. yeaaaah...if it's legal, the cost of bringing into the country drops

Making it cheaper for the cartels, who can sell a higher purity than the government they would be competing with

[jeff47]

94. The government does not sell NyQuil. Nor does the government sell pot in Colorado.

There's no reason that decriminalization has to result in a government monopoly.

Prohibition does not work. Whether it is alcohol or cocaine.

[Press Virginia]

106. Your plan was to regulate all sales

How does the government do that without controlling distribution?

NyQuil is fda approved for commercial sale. Pot dealers are licensed by the government and subject to approval

[Maedhros]

178. People die from cocaine overdoses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Len_Bias

[Scootaloo]

306. It should not treat a disease as if its sufferers were monsters.

[Press Virginia]

307. Which would be a relevant argument if it were the addicts being locked up

in federal prison using trafficking and distribution sentencing.

Clearly the president is having a hard time finding these addicts who've been treated like monsters....but he's having no problem finding the suppliers who've been locked up

[Scootaloo]

308. You were talking about "feeding the addiction," in response to a pro-legalization argument

[Press Virginia]

309. Not just feeding it. Deliberately causing it

look how well the controlled legalization of opioids is working

[MadDAsHell]

20. So I choose to live drug-free, but I should pay for "dosing centers" for everyone else who didn't?

Wow, really?

[Press Virginia]

25. Double bonus, you get to pay for rehab too

[jeff47]

28. It's way cheaper than paying for prison.

And far more likely to result in treating the addiction.

[Press Virginia]

31. How does creating addicts benefit anyone?

And why should we also pay for rehab when the addiction is to a drug distributed by the government?

[jeff47]

36. It doesn't create addicts. Addicts create themselves.

Whether or not the drug they are addicted to is legal.

And why should we also pay for rehab when the addiction is to a drug distributed by the government?

Why do you assume the drug would be distributed by the government?

We do quite well having addictive drugs being distributed by Budweiser, Bacardi, and Marlboro.

[Press Virginia]

103. Who is going to regulate the distribution and sale if not the government

a 6 pack and an 8ball...what could go wrong

[jeff47]

218. You mean like the government regulates the distribution of alcohol and cigarettes

while not actually being the ones to sell them?

[Press Virginia]

221. Ever hear of an ABC store?

And my question was who is going to regulate the production and sale if not the government.

The government raises revenue from the sale in a distribution center licensed by the state to collect those taxes on its behalf

[jeff47]

222. Yes. Most states don't have them.

And my question was who is going to regulate the production and sale if not the government.

Why would production and sale by not-the-government make it impossible to regulate? Who do you think regulates the sale of NyQuil?

[Press Virginia]

223. ever hear of the FDA? They approve of the manufacture and sale

of NyQuil.
Logically, the cartels could be distributors and ignore the government regulations on import, production and distribution

[jeff47]

229. And is the FDA the only one who sells NyQuil?

No? Then why do you keep insisting that can't possibly work?

[Press Virginia]

230. The FDA approves the product to be sold by its producer

who is going to regulate the production of cocaine, meth or heroin?, beginning with the import of either cocoa plants or finished product supplied by the cartel?

[jeff47]

231. Hrm....if only there was a government agency that already did something similar

with other products......



If you're left with saying "This can't work because there isn't currently a government agency to regulate it", you really should just stop.

[Press Virginia]

234. It can't work because the cartels will still provide drugs that cannot be regulated

The government would set purity standards that would be lower than what can be provided from a Mexican drug cartel

[Ed Suspicious]

270. Pure is pure. Cutting is a cost saving measure, no? I would suspect dosage would be far

easier to manage if purity was guaranteed. That would seem to mean there would be a lower risk of accidental overdose.

[Press Virginia]

271. Cutting is for increasing quanity.

People aren't going to buy a 40% purity when they can get 70% for the same price from the same people who are supplying the country today.

[morningfog]

34. You'd prefer to pay for their incarceration?

And the cost of policing users and dealers? And the non-monetary costs that criminalization leads to, such as gang violence, the Mexican drug wars, poverty, communities plagued by addiction, pandemic of accidental overdoses?

The list goes on. I would prefer to pay for safe places where people surfing from addiction can get the help they need. Absolutely. It's a no brainier.

[Press Virginia]

110. so we create the addicts then treat them?

The cartels aren't going to stop producing and distributing legalized drugs

[Bluenorthwest]

142. Right now we punish addicts and that seems to 'create' more because we have many addicts...

Perhaps it is the prohibition that creates the addicts? Or perhaps addicts create their own addictions?

[Press Virginia]

146. At the federal level?

Why didn't the president commute the sentences of the addicts instead of people who were caught with Kilos of coke and meth

[herding cats]

35. Nah, under our current system you can punt it off to a for profit prison.

Just ignore the local burden of police, court systems and social services for their families. That's the elephant in the room we can't mention if we don't want to fix the problem.

We're all still paying, and nothing is getting better as it is now. It's way worse.

[boobooday]

303. THIS ^^^^^^ EOM

[Major Nikon]

97. Count up all the people who's lives have been destroyed by all drugs...

and you'll still have a number that is lower than those destroyed by alcohol.

Prohibition never has worked and never will work.

[Press Virginia]

99. a legal drug...I'm sure hard drugs would be different, right?

No one gets addicted to those like they do with alcohol

[Major Nikon]

109. People getting addicted to hard drugs exactly as they do with alcohol

Some drugs have a higher propensity for addiction, but alcohol is right up there with the worst of them. Alcohol is also right up there with the hardest of drugs when it comes to adverse health issues and is among the worst as far as causing aggression and violence.

So whatever half-fast argument you want to make about the negative effects of illegal drugs applies at least as well, if not more so to alcohol.

[Press Virginia]

115. So the solution is to make them as available as alcohol?

I fail to see the benefit

[Major Nikon]

120. You don't see the benefit because you look at it exactly backwards

Instead of expecting society to tell government what it should be allowed to do, you expect the government to tell society what it is allowed to do. The proof of this is your expectation that any benefit must be justified before any power structure can be dismantled which is again exactly backwards. If the war on drugs can't be justified, then it should be dismantled. It's just that simple.

My answer to your question is yes. The solution is to make at least most drugs as available as alcohol. Drugs that are truly dangerous should be decriminalized and available and/or administered under a doctor's care.

Now a question for you.

What benefit has the criminalization of drugs provided?

[Press Virginia]

122. What is the benefit of drug addiction?

How would you regulate meth, which can be made at home?
How would you stop people from trafficking heroin and cocaine?

It's impossible to know how many people were deterred by the drug laws related to trafficking and distribution. Just as it's impossible to know how many people are deterred by other laws.

[Major Nikon]

125. You keep assuming addiction rates will go up if drugs are legalized

This is a piss poor assumption. Other countries have decriminalized drugs and their addiction rates when down, not up. So yes, it is possible to make reasonable assumptions on what will happen if drugs are decriminalized.

How would you regulate meth, which can be made at home?

Alcohol can also be made at home and a lot easier with ingredients that are available at any supermarket with a lot less hardware and know how. So the answer to your question is I would regulate it exactly the same way alcohol is regulated.

How would you stop people from trafficking heroin and cocaine?

Legalize it and put a tax stamp on it, which is same thing that keeps people from trafficking alcohol and cigarettes to any large degree.

As far as what the benefits are, well for starters there's the billions we are spending on law enforcement, prisons, and legal costs for one. Less people addicted. Less people dying from drug related causes. Less people dying from the illegal drug trade. Less chronic health problems from drug use. Less petty theft from addicts stealing shit to support illegal drug habits.

[Press Virginia]

126. If the tax stamp worked

there wouldn't be moonshiners or people trafficking cigs across state lines, in violation of the law. How many people are deterred by these laws? The fact is the market isn't as large.

How do you keep people from getting addicted by putting a tax stamp on an 8 ball? It doesn't work with alcohol or tobacco. Should the gvernment treat those addictions?
And are addicts going to stop committing crimes because they suddenly have more money for their drugs?

[Major Nikon]

129. The fact is the market for cigarettes and alcohol is measured in billions

The vast majority of that is sold under a tax stamp, so yeah, they do work. It's silly to suggest otherwise based on a statistically negligible portion of the market.

How do you keep people from getting addicted by putting a tax stamp on an 8 ball?

I've already told you those half-fast arguments are no different when the word "alcohol" is substituted. Do we really need to go over this again, or do we need to do the broken record thing?

And are addicts going to stop committing crimes because they suddenly have more money for their drugs?

No, addicts are going to stop committing crimes because the illegality of the substances they are addicted to is no longer guaranteed to destroy their lives. How many drunks do you know are breaking out car windows to round up enough pocket change to buy a bottle of Night Train? What you fail to understand is there's a significant societal cost for criminalizing drugs that goes far beyond the costs of enforcement, as if that wasn't bad enough.

[Press Virginia]

131. I specifically said moonshiners and interstate smuggling for which there isnt

A vast market. The tax stamp doesn't stop illegal activity, the market just isn't robust.

Wait, you found a solution to addiction? You need to share that with the world. Please tell me it's not just a tax stamp and a doctors note

How does an addict get the money for his newly legal drugs? Drunks, who live on the streets, commit plenty of petty crimes in order to feed their addiction...when they aren't panhandling.
Functional junkies might hold a job but for how long? Heroin, meth and crack cocaime are more addictive than alcohol.
Government sanctioned addicts are still addicts.
And legalized hard drugs aren't going to stop the cartels, just make it easier to get their product to the street and much cheaper and more pure than government approved drugs.

[Major Nikon]

163. Exactly. You are pointing out a tiny segment of the market.

And the reason why it's tiny is because those things are legally available and regulated, yet you are claiming the reason why it exists at all is because of the very method which keeps that segment of the market tiny fails to prevent every single instance. Do you even realize how ridiculous that sounds? Tax stamps as a method of regulation works and the great part about it is it works whether or not you believe it works.

Wait, you found a solution to addiction? You need to share that with the world. Please tell me it's not just a tax stamp and a doctors note

Who said anything about a "solution to addiction"? I hope you realize misrepresenting an opponents position and then proceeding to counter that false position is strawman gibberish. If not, you might want to read up on it because employing that tactic is simply going to earn you a well deserved bullshit call.

How does an addict get the money for his newly legal drugs? Drunks, who live on the streets, commit plenty of petty crimes in order to feed their addiction...when they aren't panhandling.
Functional junkies might hold a job but for how long? Heroin, meth and crack cocaime are more addictive than alcohol.
Government sanctioned addicts are still addicts.

The vast majority of addicts of all kinds are functional. The vast majority of users of drugs of all kinds (including alcohol) never become addicted to begin with. The vast majority of addicts don't live on the streets and the vast majority of people who live on the streets aren't addicts. This is John Stossel level mythology.

"Heroin, meth and crack cocaime" are at best only marginally more addictive than alcohol and of all those things only alcohol has the potential for fatal withdraw.

"Government sanctioned addicts" WTF does that even mean? You keep repeating it as if it does mean something. You say it as if you think legalization = government sanctioning. If that's what you mean that's some pretty high level claptrap.

[Press Virginia]

196. Its tiny because most people drink moonshine as a novelty. The people who do it aren't doing it

because they don't make money.

How will the government enforce these tax stamps? Have big pharma start importing cocaine and heroin to be processed for distribution to the public? It's not like they could put anyone in jail who just went off to Mexico and came back with 100 Kilos that would be more pure than anything that was regulated by the government in the name of safety.

[Major Nikon]

198. You have a curious interpretation of cause and effect

Do you actually think the black market for alcohol would be the same absent legalization or that the black market for illicit drugs would remain unchanged absent illegalization?

"Big Pharma" already produces cocaine and opiates commercially.

[Press Virginia]

200. The fact that there is a black market for alcohol should tell you that every sale can't be regulated

by the government.

[Major Nikon]

203. So because 100% legality can't be achieved, there's no sense in trying for 99%

Go it. Very clear now.

[Press Virginia]

204. No one said that. But the idea that legalization and government standards on

cocaine or heroin somehow makes it safer to the consumer or does away with the black market distribution that exceeds the government's standard is naïve. all it would accomplish is the creation of state sanctioned addicts

[Major Nikon]

206. I seem to have misplaced my English-Gibberish translation dictionary

I asked you WTF "state sanctioned addicts" even means and you declined to offer anything coherent, so I'm no longer going to attempt to entertain that nonsense.

[Press Virginia]

208. I didn't realize it was a confusing term

the government regulates the drugs, sanctions the sale of the drugs to the public.....therefore the addicts to this now legal and state sanctioned drug would be as a result of state sanctioned activity.

state sanctioned addicts

[Major Nikon]

209. Before I thought it was just crazy talk, now I'm sure of it

You do realize by the same warped definition, all alcoholics are "state sanctioned addicts", yes? Or did you even get that far in the thought process?

[Press Virginia]

210. do you even know what the word "sanction" means?

heroin, meth and crack are far more addictive than alcohol.....

[Major Nikon]

211. You are going further down the rabbit hole

I'm not sure how much farther I'm going to follow, because questioning my literacy while trying to explain something beyond ridiculous is starting to exceed my tolerance for absurdity.

"heroin, meth and crack" are NOT far more addictive than alcohol, and regardless of what your metric of addiction entails I'm quite sure it has exactly shit to do with anything remotely approaching a fully literate definition of "sanction". So let's not pretend this has anything to do with semantics.

[Press Virginia]

212. I'll take your response as a no

Heroin and Meth are the hardest addictions to kick. Alcohol comes in at number 5, right after crack and tobacco.

[Major Nikon]

213. OK, I'll play this game because it should be a lot of fun

You are exactly right. I have no earthly idea what "sanction" means.

Now it's your turn. Do you even know what the word "sanction" means? If so, please provide a definition. One that remotely fits the context you are trying to stuff it into would be even more helpful. I already know how google works.

Heroin and Meth are the hardest addictions to kick. Alcohol comes in at number 5, right after crack and tobacco.

Thanks for the 10 second google authoritative, albeit incomplete and plagiarized opinion. Now explain how this makes any of those things "far more" addictive than alcohol. The very fact they are on the same scale should be telling you something.

[Press Virginia]

214. I already know you don't know what it means

If heroin is harder to kick than alcohol it's obviously more addictive.

[Major Nikon]

215. I don't speak gibberish, so I can't come up with a definition that fits your context

But now I feel better knowing you can't either.

If heroin is harder to kick than alcohol it's obviously more addictive.

No, it obviously isn't. Try actually reading the sites you are plagiarizing this information from. There are several variables which go into the degree of addiction equation beyond just withdraw.

You are going farther down the rabbit hole.

[Press Virginia]

216. Gibberish? You're struggling with English

Maybe it's the governmental approval of the import, production and distribution as well as raising tax revenue from the sale that's confusing you.

[Major Nikon]

217. Not anymore. I learned that "addiction" is evidently part of the definition for "sanction"

But not alcohol addiction because it's far more er one notch below illegal drug addiction.

So I truly appreciate the "English" lesson, and you should be duly commended for the wealth of information you've offered.

You see, I told you this was going to be fun. I had a blast, albeit mostly at your expense, but then I knew going in your attempted justification of a failed drug war was going to be truly special and you certainly didn't disappoint.

Cheers!

[Press Virginia]

219. i see your problem

The government provides the means for people to buy cocaine and heroin but bears no responsibility for the results of the process they control and raise revenue from.

I suppose you'll argue it's the purchaser who assumed the risk...right before you tell me the guy who got a life sentence as a result of his 3rd trafficking conviction is a victim of the current government policy.

[Major Nikon]

224. Does the state sanction alcohol addiction?

I answered your questions, but you seem to have problems answering mine. Very telling that.

I suppose you'll argue it's the purchaser who assumed the risk...right before you tell me the guy who got a life sentence as a result of his 3rd trafficking conviction is a victim of the current government policy.

This is what intellectual bankruptcy looks like...

[Press Virginia]

225. I've answered your questions. You can't seem to

get from A to B

State approves of an activity, state raises revenue from an activity it cannot absolve itself of the negative outcomes.

And unlike yourself, I remain consistant in my positions.

[Major Nikon]

226. So I'll take that as a yes

Which means as far as whatever your "state sanctioned addiction" gibberish is supposed to mean, it's already happening now, so bringing this up in regards to any potential legalization discussion is completely irrelevant.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[Press Virginia]

228. Once again you get lost going from A to B

[Major Nikon]

235. As did everyone else in this thread

Perhaps it's time for reflection.

Just sayin'

[Press Virginia]

238. Yeaaaaah says the guy who cant

Grasp the concept of the the state sanctioning the cause of addiction and, therefore, the addiction itself.

Most of the respondents think people are getting life for a first trafficking/ distribution offense because they've never actually looked at the mandatory sentencing guidelines.

[Major Nikon]

240. Neither could anyone else

Probably because it was nonsense. Completely ridiculous and funny as shit nonsense, but nonsense nonetheless.

If you really want to test how funny this really is, just walk up to anyone smoking and clue them in on how the state is sanctioning their addiction and see if there's any dry eyes left in the house by the time you get laughed out of the room.

[Press Virginia]

241. See? Once again you show you don't understand the word sanction.

It sanctions the cause of the addiction and therefore the addiction itself.
In fact the state makes money from the addiction

[Major Nikon]

242. Once again you get lost going from A to B

But please don't let me stop you. I just like watching you try.

[Press Virginia]

243. Still not able to grasp such a simple concept, eh?

[Major Nikon]

249. ...

[hobbit709]

141. the percentage of the population with a substance addiction has pretty stayed the same for years.

The number of substances they can be addicted too has increased.

[ZombieHorde]

133. Yes. All of them. nt

[BlackCoffeeinNYC]

171. So does alcohol, tobacco and prescription opiates.

The line you seem to draw is specious, to say the least.

[Raine1967]

6. Thank you. nt

[greymouse]

92. I agree with morningfog

The war on drugs is immensely stupid with immensely bad consequences.

That's just in general. In particular, as someone with chronic pain, I fear every time the government makes it harder for genuine pain patients to get relief.

The government has no business making healthcare decisions for people.

As to addiction, I am far more worried about the suffering person than I am about a hundred people who choose to misuse drugs.

[ZombieHorde]

132. I completely agree. nt

[Jackie Wilson Said]

301. ALL non violent drug offenders in American penal system are political prisoners.

[Johnny2X2X]

8. The war on drugs failed

20 years in prison for a recreational drug? Give me a break.

[Press Virginia]

11. 5 kilos? He wasn't caught with a gram or an 8 ball

[morningfog]

13. Non violent dealers.

The non violent recreational user has to get their drugs from someone.

If only we go over our need to incarcerate nation-sized populations we could move on the drug policy that works.

The non violent user should be able to purchase the drug of their choice, dependence or addition safe an legally.

[Press Virginia]

18. How are we going to ensure cocaine is safe?heroin? Meth?

And when the addiction destroys families what then?

[herding cats]

22. The reality is, our current methods haven't worked.

We need to reevaluate how we think, how we sentence and how we move forward.

We've created a culture of drug violence and a massive addiction problem with our current methods.

We need to open our minds, and rethink how we need to fix the mess we've created. And, yes, this is a small step in that direction.

It's going to take us decades to undo the damage, but there has to be a starting point.

[Press Virginia]

24. How do cocaine, meth or heroin addicts

Lead to less crime?

[herding cats]

26. How does criminalizing addiction help?

I'll await your data proving how it's helped the situation.

[Press Virginia]

27. The pardoned weren't addicts

They were traffickers, many with prior felony convictions and some were in possession of a gun at the time of their arrest.

[herding cats]

30. Which has nothing to do with your reply to me.

Again, how does criminalizing addiction help?

[Press Virginia]

33. Since I'm not talking about criminalizing addiction

I don't see how its relevant to a guy caught with 5 kilos of Coke.

[herding cats]

40. A reminder for you.

Press Virginia (402 posts)
24. How do cocaine, meth or heroin addicts

Lead to less crime?
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

[jeff47]

32. And?

Those traffickers only existed because the drugs are illegal. Make them legal, and the "traffickers" become the pharma industry.

[Press Virginia]

37. The pharma industry doesn't market a drug without fda testing and approval

Billy Bob's meth lab or jack mcpoppy can put whatever he wants in his product

[jeff47]

41. And what do you think happens when recreational drugs stop being illegal?

The pharma industry goes through that testing.

How much illegal pot is being trafficked to Colorado? Basically, none. Because there's no reason to not be professional about producing it. You don't need Billy Bob's meth lab when you can build a factory to produce the stuff.

[Press Virginia]

45. So big pharma can sell cocaine and meth....great solution

Pot isn't addictive

[jeff47]

46. We have 40 years demonstrating prison does not work

and costs billions more.

Why do you want to burn tons more money on a strategy that has utterly and completely failed?

Prohibition does not work, whether it's alcohol or cocaine.

[Press Virginia]

51. How much will government approved addicts cost us?

[jeff47]

53. Less than government-incarcerated addicts, dealers and traffickers.

Prison is very expensive.

The damage to communities, the economy, and inability for former-prisoners to find work is also very expensive.

Treatment without incarceration is 1) LOTS cheaper, and 2) has a much, much, much lower recidivism rate.

And if you want to scream "OMG SOCIETY WILL COLLAPSE!!!", Portugal decriminalized drugs 15 years ago. Society hasn't collapsed there.

[TeamPooka]

49. Prohibition is a failed public policy, again. #fail nt

[Press Virginia]

123. Then why have laws at all?

Murders aren't deterred by the prohibitions against murder. Neither are rapists, burglars, car thieves or any other criminal.

[Press Virginia]

191. do you know how you get a life sentence in federal prison for drug distribution?

these aren't first time offenders, they are habitual offenders dealing in large volume.

Maybe they're the nice dealers who don't kill people

[Johnny2X2X]

188. So what?

Who are we do tell him he can't make a buck? It's absolutely ridiculous to throw people in jail for drugs, period.

[Raine1967]

9. They are non violent offenders and this OP is misleading.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/obama-commutes-sentences-61-prisoners-n547956

"They're Americans who'd been serving time on the kind of outdated sentences that are clogging up our jails and burning through our tax dollars," Obama said ahead of a lunch meeting with some of ex-cons whose sentences he commuted earlier at the Busboys and Poets restaurant in Washington.

Referring to the newest batch of prisoners who are about to be set free, Obama said "most of them are low-level drug offenders whose sentences would have been shorter if they were convicted under today's laws."

"I believe America is a nation of second chances, and with hard work, responsibility and better choices, people can change their lives and contribute to our society," he said. "That's why as long as I'm president, I'm going to keep working for a justice system that restores a sense of fairness, uses tax dollars more wisely, and keeps our communities safe."

[Press Virginia]

10. 5 kilos isn't a low level drug offender.

Neither is 55 lbs

And a lot of them were in possession of guns. Some were felons in possession of a gun

[jeff47]

38. Do we need to show you the definition of "Most"? (nt)

[Press Virginia]

42. Have you read the list of those pardoned and what they were convicted of?

I have and I know that "most" weren't low level, recreational users

[jeff47]

44. Point me towards where anyone claimed they were users

most of them are low-level drug offenders whose sentences would have been shorter if they were convicted under today's laws.

Hrm.....can't seem to find the word "users" in that sentence......

[Press Virginia]

48. Except most of them were not low level offenders

A lot of them had prior criminal convictions, and guns during the commission of their crime

[jeff47]

52. And?

Once again, throwing them in prison for decades does not work. Why do you keep insisting we must spend hundreds of billions on a strategy that does not work?

Prohibition does not work, whether it is alcohol or cocaine.

[Press Virginia]

57. Prison is a punishment.

If we're going to argue it's not a deterrent then why lock up anyone?

[jeff47]

61. Because it does deter some acts.

Using, selling, and trafficking drugs is not deterred by prison. Otherwise, that giant pile of spending in the green line would have affected the blue line.

[Press Virginia]

64. Oh? So no one is deterred by drug laws

that carry hefty prison sentences?

[jeff47]

67. Since the blue line did not change, nope.

The rate at which people used drugs did not change, even as we massively increased the incarceration rate.

That demonstrates incarceration does not reduce drug usage. If it did, the massive increase in incarceration would have reduced the rate of drug use.

[Press Virginia]

82. Yeaaaaah...you know those people who aren't deterred by prison sentences

For murder and rape? The same goes for dealers.

[jeff47]

93. Because dealers exist in a vacuum?

Dealers exist because there are users. Throw the dealers in jail, and users go down because they can't find drugs.

User rate did not change. Therefore, throwing dealers in prison did not reduce drug usage.

Prohibition does not work. Whether it is alcohol or cocaine.

[herding cats]

66. It's not deterring the drug trade.

It's gotten worse since we've made sentences longer for people who aren't committing acts of violence to peddle drugs.

Maybe we should rethink our strategy?

[Press Virginia]

71. Ahhhh but it deters murder and rape?

Just because their conviction wasn't for a violent act, it doesn't mean they didn't commit violence in the course of their business

[herding cats]

73. Addiction is on a whole different spectrum

And, I'm sure you know that.

[Press Virginia]

75. I'm not talking about criminalizing addiction

But legalizing drugs doesn't reduce addiction

[herding cats]

86. I never said to legalize drugs.

Where did you get that from? I'm pro legalized pot. That's it at this moment.

Decrimalizing drug use, and addiction is a necessary step in fixing our problems in this country.

Ending laws that just lead to unnecessary spending on sentences longer than a person convicted of committing manslaughter, and by far committing rape in most cases, for committing non violent drug crimes is long past due.

We can spend that money fixing the root of the problem, and then maybe we can all feel safer and more whole.

[Press Virginia]

90. It's the argument being made all over the thread

The war on drugs doesn't work...decriminalize and have government sanctioned addiction

[herding cats]

95. Decriminalisation does not mean that people can use drugs with impunity.

You really need to learn about the issue if you're going to argue against it.

[Press Virginia]

98. Excuse me...the argument was for legalization

And decriminalizing an 8 ball or an ounce doesn't address the people whose sent noes were commuted today

[herding cats]

107. What are you even talking about here?

I honestly have no idea.

You say one thing, then say another. Then you totally go off track and wander off a different direction not paying a bit of attention to what you're replying to.

I know people high on pot that follow a point better.

[Press Virginia]

160. I confused you with the guy who wanted legalization

of all drugs, with heroin coke and meth being distributed at dosing centers.

These are federal criminals, caught with kilos of hard drugs, not some addict with an 8 ball

[snooper2]

157. What do you want to press Virginia for, does it have too many hills?

[herding cats]

59. How is spending to keep them in prison fixing the problem?

That's what you're missing here. Not to mention the likelihood they'll reoffend.

We over sentenced people wanting to look "tough on drugs" and never addressed the real issues.

It hasn't worked. Even if it made people feel all warm and fuzzy, it failed on an epic proportion. We're in worse shape for our backward, puritanical view on addiction.

[Press Virginia]

62. How does someone serving a life sentence reoffend?

I could make your argument for any crime

[herding cats]

70. Chances of re offending is a criteria evaluated before a person is given a commuted sentence

It's technical jargon.

[Press Virginia]

80. I'm sure drug traffickers are going to be fine

earning $10/hr at burger king

[herding cats]

89. Lovely.

I'm sure you feel the same about a white collar embezzlement conviction? Their odds of ever making what they did before prison is no better after all.

[Press Virginia]

96. ahhhh...one can make millions trafficking coke

Which makes the minimum wage job that much less appealing.

A white collar criminal would probably still find employment and progress in pay, even back to what they made before

[herding cats]

102. They'll be a convicted felon the same as the drug dealer.

That they'll find legitimate employment that paid them as well as they made committing their crimes isn't likely. They're just like all the rest. Subject to background checks and never escaping their past.

You don't know any white collar criminals I'm guessing? They're unemployable in their old fields if they background check them, unless they were famous. Which is rare. Sure, they can lie on the application and take their chances, but more and more industries background check. Most end up working low end jobs when they get out. Some accountants, and such go freelance. Always background check your accountant. People lose their life savings all too often by trusting people who aren't trustworthy.

[Press Virginia]

105. Ahhhh...so the drug trafficker is going to go from

Hundreds of thousands of tax free money to a legit job that pays minimum wage

And not all businesses run background checks

[herding cats]

111. Ok.

You're not looking for real conversation. You're just internet raging. I get it now.

Hey, maybe check out GDP? You'd love it there.

[Press Virginia]

113. No. I'm trying to understand how releasing drug traffickers

Benefits anyone

[herding cats]

116. No, you're not.

You're deeply entrenched in you're specific mindset and being dismissive of anyone who says otherwise. It doesn't make you smart, or right, when you ignore things that don't support your views and make painfully thin arguments for your side.

[Press Virginia]

118. If you say so

[TeamPooka]

47. Got it. You're an anti-drug warrior who ignores extenuating circumstances and the fact that

all were noted non-violent offenders who were mostly over-sentenced (usually because of their race)
First offense getting life in prison for any drug possession or trafficking, even 55 kilos, is a travesty of justice and the President was right to correct it in these cases.
I only wish he could have let thousands more go free today.
Are you for privatizing prisons too?

[Press Virginia]

50. Have you read the list of the people who had their sentences commuted

And what they actually did?

I've got not problem with weed or X

[TeamPooka]

83. You focus on the crimes. The rest of us focus on the justice.

[Press Virginia]

117. What justice is derived from releasing drug traffickers?

[840high]

130. None.

[Glassunion]

169. What justice is derived from retaining drug dealers?

[treestar]

227. good post. How many times have people made the President look bad

and then looking into it in more detail it turns out not to be quite so simple? Zillions in the past 7 years.

[Raine1967]

247. Almost every damn time, treestar.

It's a shame, to be honest.

I am very grateful for what he is doing here. I have a strong feeling that after he leaves office he will still keep working on this issue.

[Press Virginia]

287. That's the claim, here's a dose of the truth

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7731045

[PSPS]

19. The usual response includes the words Kenyan, socialist, Muslim, gun-grabbing, but misspelled.

[revbones]

39. 13 dimensional chess... nt

[Warren DeMontague]

135. Actually, I think pardoning nonviolent drug offenders is a good, overdue move.

The war on drugs has failed. Period. Full stop.

prison should be for people who commit acts of violence, etc.

[revbones]

162. I agree. Why is it such a small selective group though?

That's my point. It should be a much larger group.

[Warren DeMontague]

187. I don't know the answer, there.

[underahedgerow]

138. More lives are ruined by PRISON than by drugs use and addiction.

Just sayin'.

Obama's on the right track.

[Rex]

63. CIA operatives can't smuggle in drugs if they are stuck in prison.

Mitch McConnell called in some favors.

[fbc]

69. Technically this guy didn't even transport cocaine

He worked for Air France and met the mule to help him get through customs:

http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/apnews/stories/032301/D7ATT4S02.html

[Yallow]

78. 3 Year Max All Drug Crimes

Free voluntary treatment for all drug users any time night or day.

Walk in when you have had enough.

No more customers, no more dealers.

Save billions upon billions.

And more and more billions on top of the other billions.

What will all the cartels do when they have no more customers?

If I can get clean, anyone can.

Just remember, the very by far worst drug is still legal.

Booze kills thousands. 80k per year.

No "illegal" drug comes close.....

http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm

There, problem solved.

Sell your private prison stock asap.

[TransitJohn]

79. How about the people doing life for LSD

because they counted the weight of blotter paper as though it were crystal acid? Coke traffickers, shaking my head.

[TeamPooka]

87. OP is intentionally obtuse and ignores facts of the cited cases. Thread trashed, OP ignored.

[Warren DeMontague]

134. Because the war on drugs has failed, that's why.

The solution to addiction is to offer treatment on demand and treat hard drugs from a harm reduction standpoint.

When people want something, other people will sell it to them. Did locking these dealers up get rid of the problem? No, it created more dealers to fill the vacuum. You can stick those dealers in prison, too, guess what will happen. More dealers will appear.

Obviously pot should be legal, regulated, and taxed (and legalization works, by the way, while simultaneously getting the criminal cartel element out of the business) .. now, should hard drugs be available at the 7-11? I wouldnt say so, but if the ONLY alternative to the draconian, authoritarian, 4th amendment shitting-on clusterfuck we have now is full legalization, then yes to my mind it would be preferable.

Maybe we need to fundamentally re-examine the idea that consenting adults in a free society shouldn't have the right to make choices- even shitty ones- about their own bodies, brains and bloodstreams.

[underahedgerow]

137. Exactly. People don't NOT do drugs because they're illegal, they choose not to embrace

a lifestyle that is self-destructive.

[Warren DeMontague]

139. I think it's an oversimplification. Not all drugs are equal, neither is all use/abuse/addiction

you have different people, sometimes at different points in their lives, and they may have different kinds of relationships with different substances, different use patterns, etc.

Some studies have been done which indicate even the so-called super hard, dangerous drugs like heroin- only some percentage of people get addicted to it. I don't know, seems sort of a dangerous experiment to try, but I do know for instance that some people shouldn't touch alcohol at all, some people can drink it occasionally with no problem, some people get some benefit from it, and then some people are problem drinkers who nevertheless don't develop the physiological symptoms of alcoholism, etc.

"self-destructive" is somewhat a subjective label, anyway. A glaring example would be someone like Chris Christie who obviously seems to have some 'self-destructive' habits when it comes to taking care of his own physical person, yet nevertheless has the nerve to lecture the millions of people who use something like cannabis responsibly, calling them "diseased".

But, yes. When it comes to people deciding that a certain substance or relationship with that substance is harmful or detrimental in their lives, they fundamentally need to be the one to make that call and seek out help or ways to get themselves into a better, more healthy frame (and I do not subscribe to the one-size-fits-all treatment mentality which some 12 step professionals embrace) ... others can't do it for them.

Lastly, prohibition just doesn't work. We should have learned that with alcohol.

[Major Nikon]

166. I saw something funny on TV last night while channel surfing

I don't remember the channel or name of the program, but they were interviewing a small town stereotypical Buford T. Justice chief of police talking about rounding up drug dealers. His exact quote was, "I"m not going to let these guys make a living on the backs of our good citizens." He said it with a straight face so I'm pretty sure the irony was completely lost on him.

What most people seem to know about drugs seems to come from a DARE brochure filled with rhetoric about first a "crack epidemic" which never seemed to materialize and now a similar hysteria about a "meth epidemic". The reality is that most people simply can't see the parallels between legal drugs and illegal ones, which is probably a pretty good testament to the effectiveness of a well orchestrated bullshit campaign that promises society will collapse if the war on drugs is dismantled.

[Warren DeMontague]

258. Yeah, there is a whole ton of complexity to the conversation that just doesn't get covered by

the knee-jerk rhetoric. The fact that all "drugs" are not the same (both legal and illegal). The unintended consequences to various enforcement actions and the connections between certain use patterns and other social or economic factors.

Take the concurrent conversations about "the prescription drug crisis" and "the heroin crisis". Only occassionally will someone acknowledge that the two are related, and in fact that it has been stricter "tightening" of rules around prescription opiods which has driven some people with pain, as well as some addicts, to the black market.

Just the other day I read some apologia piece talking about how "well, doctors are just going to have to tell people to accept pain"- fucking GREAT. As someone who has had oral surgery and benefited a fuckton from the targeted brief use of pain medication, it's just lovely to think that next time (heaven forbid) i will be told to meditate or try yoga instead.

And yeah, who didn't see that coming? All the rhetoric about "ZO NO, people getting high off prescription meds" and yes, invariably when you "crack down" on the "problem" you are also going to move in the direction of forcing people to suffer. But it's okay, because you're stopping some other people from catching an unauthorized buzz. Squee!

To be sure, there are overdose problems with prescription meds as well- but another aspect to that, which is not often discussed; how much of the medical fallout from, say, vicodin abuse is due not to the opiod component, but due to the fact that it is bound up with acetaminophen, which is liver toxic and incredibly easy to OD on, despite being available over the counter?

On the topic of the "meth epidemic", as you mention- a couple things I consider relevant there, one being that meth is a problem often in places where the so-called WOD has worked especially well in eliminating other mind-alterants, also the socioeconomic component which is that meth is a logical outgrowth of an economic environment where you have people forced to work two, three minimum wage shit jobs with no benefits, to get by. The dude who pulls 8 hours at Wal-Mart and then does the night shift at the AM/PM? How else is he gonna manage? And meth helps him get through, for a little while, until his teeth fall out and he develops symptoms of psychosis, etc.

[Major Nikon]

273. The legal consequences of cannabis and bath salts aren't that different

So the results are predictable. When you force the drug trade underground, you lose all control over it and those who wish to have more intoxicating choices than ethanol are going to be dealing with distributors who often stock a variety of products.

Kinky Friedman has a pretty good line. "Everybody knows the gateway drug of Texas is beer!"

It's important to remember that the hysteria over certain drugs is just that. The law enforcement community loves to show pictures of meth addicts in terrible physical states. Somewhere around .5-1 million people in the US are using illicit meth regularly, yet only a small minority of those fit the stereotype, that suggests the vast majority of meth users aren't having such problems. Chemically illicit meth just isn't that different from adderall, so where's all the pictures of school aged children with missing teeth and psychosis? It's not unlike showing a picture of a destitute alcoholic to someone sipping a chardonnay with dinner and asking them if they want to wind up that way.

Unquestionably a small minority of people who use any highly intoxicating drug, including alcohol, are going to have significant problems with addiction. This is going to occur more or less to the same degree whether or not those substances are legal or illegal, and there's a very high social cost to the later for no tangible gain and an exacerbation of the problems that are going to inevitably exist. The justification is completely mindless and the result is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It goes something like 'drugs ruin lives, so lets put you in jail and ruin your life to prove it'.

[Major Nikon]

165. How you can tell you live in an authoritative society....

Is by how many people rely on an outside entity to restraint their propensity toward vices. Ironically most authoritarians fault the government for things it does well and praise the government for things it fucks up.

[Warren DeMontague]

186. One of the more refreshing trends I've noticed in this country, in my lifetime- at least the past

decade or so- is that there really has been a marked change towards a sort of "well, of course" response to the idea that consenting adults should be generally free to make their own choices about their own personal shit, as long as they're not harming or endangering others. I don't know if it is a generational change, if it is the internet, or what... but the authoritarian, control freak arguments seem to get a lot less traction.

They were always at times dressed up in "but think of the children" rhetoric more or less, but now it seems there are very few people who are willing to try and advance those arguments on any other basis whatsoever.

[Darb]

143. Me thinks, thou protesteth

too much.

[PeteSelman]

155. Because mandatory minimums are repulsive.

Why does it matter what the drug is?

[Press Virginia]

177. what should the penalty be for smuggling and trafficking in say Heroin or Coke?

we're not talking about a guy who got caught with a little bit of blow or some smack during a traffic stop.
We're talking about people who are dealing in kilos....

[PeteSelman]

199. Drugs should be legalized.

There would be no need for anyone to do any time.

However, for the purposes of this argument, seven years max.

[Press Virginia]

201. 7 years....why that's more than the current mandatory minimum for a first offense

once they're legalized, what do we do with the addicts?

[PeteSelman]

261. I said "max".

I did NOT say "anyone convicted of a drug offense should get seven years."

What does Portugal and Amsterdam and so on do with their addicts? Allow them to get what they need and offer treatment for those who want it.

It's not that hard.

[ViseGrip]

164. Because sentencing laws have changed since they were sentenced.

[Press Virginia]

175. Really? The penalties for smuggling and trafficking are now less severe?

when did this happen?

[Matrosov]

170. Great War on Drugs is a scam

Apparently we learned nothing from the miserable failure that was Prohibition.

When people want to get high or intoxicated, they'll find a way regardless of what the laws say. Throwing them in jail doesn't cure their addiction. Throwing a smuggler or dealer in jail will only see two more pop up in his place.

One important thing the GWoD defenders do not realize, or at least refuse to acknowledge, is how the criminalization of drugs makes everything worse. The GWoD keeps the cost of drugs artificially high, which not only leads to violence among competitors, but it also encourages addicts to commit crimes to be able to afford their next fix.

[tenderfoot]

174. Your concern has been duly noted.

[FSogol]

176. Question: Are "people unjustly imprisoned for a little bit of weed" in FEDERAL prison

on FEDERAL charges?

[Press Virginia]

179. That's what we were led to believe

we're also supposed to believe someone who was arrested with 500 grams of meth while being a felon in possession of a firearm is the same as a guy who got caught with a small amount of drugs in a traffic stop.

I just wonder why we're releasing drug dealers

[FSogol]

181. You really have your facts wrong. There are very few people in Federal prison for marijuana

possession. I recommend doing a little research.

[Press Virginia]

184. there's very few in federal prison whose only crime was posession

calling drug dealers, some with previous drug related felonies, low level offenders is a little ridiculous.

[steve2470]

180. Somehow I don't think you started this thread for a thoughtful discussion

I really don't. Your mind is 100% made up.

[Press Virginia]

185. is it?

I mean, if you can tell me how society benefits from releasing drug dealers, with multiple drug convictions and some who were felons in possession of a firearm, I'd love to hear it.

These are not first time offenders or people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[steve2470]

189. People have already addressed your concerns, multiple times

Your mind is 100% made up. You did this for flamebait and to stir shit. Congrats. Mission accomplished.

Nothing I can say will change your mind. Don't waste your time on me, because I agree with what other posters have said.

[Press Virginia]

190. you mean people who have no idea how you get a life sentence in a federal prison

for distribution of drugs? Or the ones who want all drugs legalized and then supplied by the government to doctors?

[steve2470]

192. "Supplied by the government to doctors" = LIBERTARIAN

Bingo, you're a libertarian. You're in the wrong place, my friend. Again...congrats on stirring shit.

On edit: I'm a bored cat now, done playing with your "mouse". On ignore you go. Somehow I don't think you'll be on DU very long.

[Press Virginia]

193. That wasn't my argument, it was made by someone else.

[Dont call me Shirley]

183. Um, they gave him a nice donation?

[monicaangela]

202. Do you have a link to this story?

[SalviaBlue]

205. Thanks Obama!

"These men and women were not hardened criminals, but the overwhelming majority had been sentenced to at least 20 years. Fourteen of them had been sentenced to life for nonviolent drug offenses so their punishments didn't fit the crime."

"I believe that America, at its heart, is a nation of second chances," he continued, "and I believe these folks deserve their second chance."

I would like for all drugs to be legal.

A quick Google search shows the police and right wingers to be against it.

[Press Virginia]

207. have you ever read the mandatory minimum sentences for drug trafficking and distribution?

You get life on your 3RD conviction.

http://famm.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Chart-All-Fed-MMs-NW.pdf

[SalviaBlue]

256. Manditory minimums are dispicable and lazy kneejerk reactionary laws...

kinds like strike three and you're out laws.

Do you agree with this shit?

[Press Virginia]

257. Do I agree that people who prove over and over they will continue

committing felonies should not get a 4th chance. Yep

I have no problem with mandatory minimums for drug traffickers, especially those who traffic in heroin, Coke and meth. Just as I have no problem with mandatory minimums for murder and rape.

[Iggo]

233. Because the drug war is fucking stupid. (n/t)

[Glassunion]

237. 'Cause he's smart

[Press Virginia]

239. Releasing people with 3 trafficking/distribution convictions is smart?

Why?

[Glassunion]

244. No. Releasing people with 3 convictions.

Define distribution and trafficking.

You may be shocked, shocked I say at what you find.

[Press Virginia]

245. I'll let the mandatory sentencing guidelines define it

http://famm.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Chart-All-Fed-MMs-NW.pdf

[Glassunion]

246. You're upset that a 20 year sentence was knocked down to 15?

Mandatory minimums are an excellent way to keep the darker skinned folks away from white people.

You're all upset because a 20 year sentence was turned into 15? What would the extra 5 have done for society or the imprisoned? How old is he? What were his other two convictions? Did you even bother to find out?

[Press Virginia]

248. I don't see the benefit of releasing a drug dealer who, no doubt, profited from the deaths

of more than a few dark skinned folks. Especially a repeat offender who was dealing in Kilos.


And to get the 20 years it would have been his second offense, minimum of 5 kilos of cocaine or a kilo of heroin

[Glassunion]

250. Ok... So in 4.89 years when he was slated to get out, what then?

[Press Virginia]

251. Then he served his time.

but he wasn't in prison because he got caught with an ounce of blow. And he wasn't a first time offender.

Surely there was someone more deserving than people with multiple drug felonies

[Glassunion]

252. What exactly were his other two convictions?

Or didn't you bother to look?

[Press Virginia]

253. Did you not look at the sentencing guidelines related to the mandatory minimums?

There were 14 people who had their sentences commuted who were felons in possession of a gun at the time of their arrest

[Glassunion]

259. You're not answering my question

What exact were the other 2 convictions?

[Press Virginia]

260. For whom?

The sentencing guidelines make it easy to figure out why they got Life

[Glassunion]

263. The individual you singled out in the OP. Carmel Bretous

He did not get "Life", he got 20 years and it was his 3rd strike.

Here is the funny thing. If he were sentenced for the exact same crime today, he would be sent to prison for 15 years, not 20 using the current sentencing guidelines.

So your upset because he has not paid his debt to society. But using current guidelines, he has paid his debt.

[Press Virginia]

266. I didn't say he got life.

And what you fail to acknowledge is he has proven incapable of not committing felonies....hardly the guy who would be the poster boy of second chances.

[liberal N proud]

254. I think he told the turtle that he would release the incarcerated until the Senate voted on his

SCOTUS nomination

[Brickbat]

267. Just to bug you.

[killbotfactory]

280. Are you a cop?

By law you have to tell us.





..

[Press Virginia]

281. Does he look like a cop?

[Fla Dem]

288. Bretous already served 15 years of a 19 year sentence for 5 kilograms of cocaine.

A lot is taken into consideration when commuting sentences. How they've reformed in prison, if they have a good family support system, and how just was the sentence for the crime committed among other issues.

[Press Virginia]

289. evidently the fact he's a repeat offender was ignored

More of those poor drug dealers who will get their 3rd or 4th second chance


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7731045

[Last_Stand]

295. Considering most of the responses on this thread...

I'd say the Far-Left has finally gone over the edge. Congratulations, you're all as delusional as the Far-Right in this country. If you seriously believe that career hard-drug smugglers with weapons belong back on the street, I'd love to see them move into your neighborhoods and see how goddamn liberal you'll be about that. Friggin' NIMBYs...

I didn't leave the party, the party finally left me.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

302. ALL non violent drug offenders in American penal system are political prisoners.