Obama Seeks to Change Crack Sentences

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by This_person

How would you regulate morphine? PCP? OTC like alcohol too?

Like alcohol, you punish the behavior; people who are out of control or stealing or driving or showing up to work wasted get punished. Take all that money that goes into housing people in jail and put it into rehab, asylums, etc.

What we do now is akin to raiding bars and kicking peoples doors in for home brewing, thus the cost, and profit, of alcohol goes up due to risk thus the violence to get that money goes up. Didn't we try that once?

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

Like alcohol, you punish the behavior; people who are out of control or stealing or driving or showing up to work wasted get punished. Take all that money that goes into housing people in jail and put it into rehab, asylums, etc.

So, as a taxpayer, you feel that my money is better spent curing people of something they should know is bad for them instead of deterring their addiction in the first place? That doesn't make much sense to me. Why not just stop the use of known bad things instead of paying someone to get over it later?

As an employer, do you feel it's your right to randomly test people for drugs you find offensive or detrimental to your larger workforce, and be able to fire based upon those results?

What we do now is akin to raiding bars and kicking peoples doors in for home brewing, thus the cost, and profit, of alcohol goes up due to risk thus the violence to get that money goes up. Didn't we try that once?

We did - we went after the suppliers instead of the users. That was where we failed previously. And, we learned nothing from that, so we're doing the same thing again. We ignore (for the most part) the user, trying to deter the supplier. All that does is make supply more lucrative. We should go after the user instead of the supplier, which would eliminate much of the demand, thereby making supply not worth it.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by This_person

So, as a taxpayer, you feel that my money is better spent curing people of something they should know is bad for them instead of deterring their addiction in the first place? That doesn't make much sense. You like paying for jail better? You like the violence?

As an employer, do you feel it's your right to randomly test people for drugs you find offensive or detrimental to your larger workforce, and be able to fire based upon those results? As long as I apply it fairly, sure. I have a zero tolerance policy. We did - we went after the suppliers instead of the users. That was where we failed previously. And, we learned nothing from that, so we're doing the same thing again. We ignore (for the most part) the user, trying to deter the supplier. All that does is make supply more lucrative. We should go after the user instead of the supplier, which would eliminate much of the demand, thereby making supply not worth it.

We kinda agree except we DO go after users; there are HUGE numbers of people in jail who are there for being users.

My plan, we go after users BEHAVIOR. Just like alcohol.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

We kinda agree except we DO go after users; there are HUGE numbers of people in jail who are there for being users.

My plan, we go after users BEHAVIOR. Just like alcohol.

I don't like paying for jail, but I prefer to pay to deter someone's use than have my money spent to rehabilitate someone for something that was known to be wrong in the first place.

Rehabilitation of a crook, for example, should not be psychological training of why theft is bad - that should already be a given. Perhaps job training that gets reimbursed once the job is obtained from that, etc., makes some sense, but not detox. Where's the incentive to NOT do the wrong thing again? Where's the responsibility to society at large?

Plus, you have to admit that the behavior risk associated with alcohol is much difference in significance than PCP, don't you?

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by This_person

I don't like paying for jail, but I prefer to pay to deter someone's use than have my money spent to rehabilitate someone for something that was known to be wrong in the first place.

Well, you got a choice to make.

Pay for a justice system that fines me, sends me to rehab, or even jail if I just won't get with the program AND lose the violence and corruption.

OR

Pay to not only put me in jail for using but go after the pushers and the king pins and deal with the violence and corruption that comes along with the money.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

Well, you got a choice to make.

Pay for a justice system that fines me, sends me to rehab, or even jail if I just won't get with the program AND lose the violence and corruption.

OR

Pay to not only put me in jail for using but go after the pushers and the king pins and deal with the violence and corruption that comes along with the money.

You've changed the parameters.

You'd have a fine for use? I'm 100% for that. Serious, huge fines. I don't believe jail is the proper way to handle drug users. And, I'd have those fines be tied to somone's income, or net worth, or in some way variable so that it doesn't become a fee for the rich to do what the poor can't afford to do. Some minimum dollar value, with a sliding scale based upon percentage of income or net worth above that minimum value. Use THAT money to pay for the rehab, and you may have me. Well, except of course for the people left widowed or orphaned that were victims of these drug users' actions - that may still make me think deterring from use in the first place is a better idea.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by This_person

You've changed the parameters.

You'd have a fine for use? I'm 100% for that. Serious, huge fines.

I changed nothing. You assumed I was for some sort of lawless society when I said, specifically, treat it like alcohol. It's expensive and embarrassing to get a DWI.

No one is much getting shot or blown up or robbed over alcohol and no cops or judges or lawyers or pols are owned by criminals.

[bcp (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

We kinda agree except we DO go after users; there are HUGE numbers of people in jail who are there for being users.

My plan, we go after users BEHAVIOR. Just like alcohol.

Ill agree, that has some merit.

However my thoughts are that we would be legalizing something just because we cant handle the quantity of the crimes committed under the current laws.

and to flip once again.
I have long thought that there is little wrong with Billy Bob and friends burning a joint around the campfire at night,, I just prefer not to be involved, but, I cant really remember anyone forcing me to drink a beer at the fire pit either.

[Mike (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Sonsie

The brother is just lookin' out for his peeps, give the druggie in chief a break! He has to reward his voting base.
Attachment 63575

Sorry, I forgot about his history.

[ImnoMensa]

Obama wants to keep the Brothers out of jail and voting Democrat.

Let's make all drugs legal. We can all use anything anytime. No prescriptions. Just walk in the drug store and get your Oxycontin, Valium, Atenolol, Cough Syrup with Codeine. Upers -Downers . Put it on the shelf and let us help ourselves. Why not?

If you legalise Heroin, Cocaine, why must we go to a Doctor to get anything we want. ?

Legalise it all.

Sound stupid?? It is. So is legalising Heroin and Cocaine.