Obama shoots Rule of Law again. Wants to give clemency to THOUSANDS of drug criminals

[B. Kidd]

Reagan launched the War on Drugs in the 80s. I remember when his administration would pump propaganda into our homes, "You can't fly when you're high". He was supplanting the role of families. I don't want government playing any role in raising my children. I don't care if their message is good, bad or neutral, I don't want Big Brother to play a paternal role over the population. Of course, republicans feel differently. They love giving Washington more power.

The War on Drugs has been a spectacular failure. It has merely served to give the federal government more power over state law enforcement. Like any Washington agency, it has devolved into a bloated bureaucracy with near criminal cost over-runs. I hope Obama overturns the entire program, from its failed legal applications to its sweeping control over the states. Of course, we all know that if Obama fucks with one of the GOPs favorite bureaucracies, he will be blamed for destroying the world. God forbid we let individuals decide for themselves what to do with their own bodies. Conservatives said the same things about alcohol, which lead to prohibition. They're always trying to use government to protect the individual and social body from "evil" substances, or maybe they just needed a better tool for moving blacks from welfare to cages. Hard to say.

republicans feel differently. They love giving Washington more power.

so do Democrats....i cant believe you people that think only one party wants power....

and as far as the rest of what you have said....WHY....is the "war" on drugs still going on?...if the Democrats are so against it,why havent they and our President....abolished it yet?....i dont even see them talking about it....they cant even act on pot even after 2 states legalized it and more are looking at doing that.....they cant even pull it off the schedule 1 list.....they are just as bad as Republicans when it comes to dealing with drugs especially pot....

Isn't this thread indicative of your answer? Any pol who gets in front of reforming a failed system of mandatory strict sentencing laws for non-violent acts is knee jerk attacked for "soft on crime," or worse "letting his constiuents out." Things change as states themselves face rational allocation of tax dollars.

Rational allocation of tax dollars is code for 'we're broke as a joke'.

 

[Harry Dresden]

All citizens have the right to void bad laws.
What matters if we take responsibility for our response to them, either way.

Every time recreational drug users deliberately break the laws, they are exercising freedoms and actions they believe they have the right to even though the law states otherwise. but lawabiding taxpayers end up paying for the consequences.

Neither the law breakers or law enforcers are paying the costs incurred on the public.

If we don't take responsibility, the resulting backlog dumped on taxpayers for consequences obstructs due process and reforms. That is why people like Obama take any shortcut available while the problems remain unfixed while debating how to fix them.

This is a sign of a larger problem if procedures are bypassed, as with ACA
that didn't fully follow Constitutional procedures or standards from the beginning,
and with each ruling and change made that still fails to address the root conflicts.

The reason the drug laws, immigration laws, and now health care laws
are not being reformed is that we don't agree how to take back and track
"separate responsibility" for the separate sides we believe in.
So we all get stuck with a "collective policy" that dumps this on the taxpayer instead of separating responsibility for the consequences. We would have to be equally respectful and inclusive of the opposing views in order to sort out these issues fairly; but since we are too busy fighting for one side over the other, nothing is getting corrected or reformed.

We all suffer the escalating costs and consequences, and Obama is attempting to bypass that just using executive orders as a shortcut against the whole backlogged process.

If obozo doesn't like the law then he should ask congress to change it. But no - obozo changes it himself!

Ordered Liberty » Clemency for Drug Offenders Is More Presidential Lawlessness Disguised as Pardon Power

April 21st, 2014 - 12:52 pm

Attorney General Eric Holder announced today that dozens of lawyers will be reassigned to the Justice Department’s pardon office in anticipation of a surge of applications from drug offenders for reductions in their sentences — applications the Obama administration has signaled it would look upon favorably. This exercise is another transparent usurpation of legislative power by the president. The pardon power is just the camouflage for it.

The pardon power exists so that the president can act in individual cases to correct excesses and injustices. It is not supposed to be a vehicle by which presidents rewrite congressional statutes that they disagree with philosophically (just as “prosecutorial discretion,” another doctrine the Obama administration has abused, is not supposed to be a vehicle by which the president substitutes his policies for duly enacted federal law).

The Obama administration is philosophically opposed to mandatory minimums in the federal penal law, especially in the narcotics area. The Justice Department is filled with racialist ideologues and pro-criminal rights ideologues (they tend to be the same people) who have long contended that the drug laws are racist. This is another of those absurd arguments that finds racism based on unintended consequences rather than racist designs.

The mandatory minimums for crack (“cocaine base&#8221 crimes are more severe than for powder cocaine (which was called “cocaine hydrochloride” back when I was a federal prosecutor). Many crack distributors are black and Hispanic, while many powder cocaine distributors are white — although there are plenty of whites in the former category and minority dealers in the latter. Thus, it is contended, the mandatory minimums are racist in effect.

Every time recreational drug users deliberately break the laws, they are exercising freedoms and actions they believe they have the right to even though the law states otherwise. but lawabiding taxpayers end up paying for the consequences.


Emily believe me.....if i am smoking a joint in my place just watching TV....it aint costing you or anybody else anything.....

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Was a licensed addictions counselor for the courts for 28 years.

Well, that explains it.

You only encountered the junkies who got arrested and couldn't afford private rehab.

I have also been a licensed addiction counselor, for a private rehab - and I saw quite a fair share of "successful", millionaire junkies.

I dealt with the vast majority of junkies; those who bragged they had 5 bitches and a brand new caddy but couldn't bail out for a hundred bucks.
Your clients could afford 5 bitches, the caddy, and could make bail numerous times. Tough population..........

You'd be surprised.

My clients all either had great insurance, or could afford the 10 grand minimum self-pay for 2 weeks - and it's a lot harder to explain to a CEO that they're "powerless" when they're used to having power.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Reagan launched the War on Drugs in the 80s. I remember when his administration would pump propaganda into our homes, "You can't fly when you're high". He was supplanting the role of families. I don't want government playing any role in raising my children. I don't care if their message is good, bad or neutral, I don't want Big Brother to play a paternal role over the population. Of course, republicans feel differently. They love giving Washington more power.

The War on Drugs has been a spectacular failure. It has merely served to give the federal government more power over state law enforcement. Like any Washington agency, it has devolved into a bloated bureaucracy with near criminal cost over-runs. I hope Obama overturns the entire program, from its failed legal applications to its sweeping control over the states. Of course, we all know that if Obama fucks with one of the GOPs favorite bureaucracies, he will be blamed for destroying the world. God forbid we let individuals decide for themselves what to do with their own bodies. Conservatives said the same things about alcohol, which lead to prohibition. They're always trying to use government to protect the individual and social body from "evil" substances, or maybe they just needed a better tool for moving blacks from welfare to cages. Hard to say.

republicans feel differently. They love giving Washington more power.

so do Democrats....i cant believe you people that think only one party wants power....

and as far as the rest of what you have said....WHY....is the "war" on drugs still going on?...if the Democrats are so against it,why havent they and our President....abolished it yet?....i dont even see them talking about it....they cant even act on pot even after 2 states legalized it and more are looking at doing that.....they cant even pull it off the schedule 1 list.....they are just as bad as Republicans when it comes to dealing with drugs especially pot....

Isn't this thread indicative of your answer? Any pol who gets in front of reforming a failed system of mandatory strict sentencing laws for non-violent acts is knee jerk attacked for "soft on crime," or worse "letting his constiuents out." Things change as states themselves face rational allocation of tax dollars.

if the majority of people in this Country are for at least decriminalizing pot.....i cant see how the Politician advocating that would looked at as being soft on crime....

 

[bendog]

republicans feel differently. They love giving Washington more power.

so do Democrats....i cant believe you people that think only one party wants power....

and as far as the rest of what you have said....WHY....is the "war" on drugs still going on?...if the Democrats are so against it,why havent they and our President....abolished it yet?....i dont even see them talking about it....they cant even act on pot even after 2 states legalized it and more are looking at doing that.....they cant even pull it off the schedule 1 list.....they are just as bad as Republicans when it comes to dealing with drugs especially pot....

Isn't this thread indicative of your answer? Any pol who gets in front of reforming a failed system of mandatory strict sentencing laws for non-violent acts is knee jerk attacked for "soft on crime," or worse "letting his constiuents out." Things change as states themselves face rational allocation of tax dollars.

if the majority of people in this Country are for at least decriminalizing pot.....i cant see how the Politician advocating that would looked at as being soft on crime....

Of course. Opinion is changing. That was my pt. But, you can still witness the RW hysteria here. But essentially, it is becoming "safe" for pols to act rationally on drugs.

 

[B. Kidd]

Well, that explains it.

You only encountered the junkies who got arrested and couldn't afford private rehab.

I have also been a licensed addiction counselor, for a private rehab - and I saw quite a fair share of "successful", millionaire junkies.

I dealt with the vast majority of junkies; those who bragged they had 5 bitches and a brand new caddy but couldn't bail out for a hundred bucks.
Your clients could afford 5 bitches, the caddy, and could make bail numerous times. Tough population..........

You'd be surprised.

My clients all either had great insurance, or could afford the 10 grand minimum self-pay for 2 weeks - and it's a lot harder to explain to a CEO that they're "powerless" when they're used to having power.

I figured that. I meant in the sense of 'how many times was your life threatened?'.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Most junkies don't have a pot to piss in and have to deal/steal/suck dick to survive. You are living proof that common sense isn't real common anymore.

How do you know what "most junkies" have?

Was a licensed addictions counselor for the courts for 28 years.

Which means you ran into the dregs, which are actually outliers. The simple fact is that private rehab facilities do a booming business, which means they must find plenty of junkies with the means to pay their fees.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

What these fine folk really need is taxpayer financed rehabilitation, housing, education, food stamps, a livable minimum wage, and subsidized commie care .... For the common good Lol

 

[nodoginnafight]

IF addicts commit crimes................you need to reword that to WHEN addicts commit crimes...........

Other than breaking drug laws - tell me the crimes of Heath Ledger, Len Bias, Lenny Bruce, Truman Capote, Coco Chanel, Tommy Dorsey, John Entwistle, Chris Farley, Sigmund Freud, Judy Garland, King George V, Jimi Hendrix, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Abbie Hoffman, Billie Holiday, Whitney Houston, Janis Joplin, .....

The list goes on and on and those are just the famous people.

Wealthy people like their drugs too. They don't have to commit crimes to support their habit.

Your post is pure ignorance.

Most junkies don't have a pot to piss in and have to deal/steal/suck dick to survive. You are living proof that common sense isn't real common anymore.

In every category of crime in this study except two (arson and sale of illegal drugs) the incidents among alcohol abusers is greater than the instances among drug abusers.
Drug Related Crime

So you just keep on with the "oh, everybody knows ..." argument. You are only proving your ignorance.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I dealt with the vast majority of junkies; those who bragged they had 5 bitches and a brand new caddy but couldn't bail out for a hundred bucks.
Your clients could afford 5 bitches, the caddy, and could make bail numerous times. Tough population..........

You'd be surprised.

My clients all either had great insurance, or could afford the 10 grand minimum self-pay for 2 weeks - and it's a lot harder to explain to a CEO that they're "powerless" when they're used to having power.

I figured that. I meant in the sense of 'how many times was your life threatened?'.

I'll give you that one - although I did get "I'm gonna have you fired" a lot.

 

[B. Kidd]

How do you know what "most junkies" have?

Was a licensed addictions counselor for the courts for 28 years.

Which means you ran into the dregs, which are actually outliers. The simple fact is that private rehab facilities do a booming business, which means they must find plenty of junkies with the means to pay their fees.

Private in-patient rehabs were a booming business years ago until insurers stopped paying for the common person. Then, everything went outpatient, except for the millionaires.......
Still, a lot of money was to be had keeping them on the therapeutic tit.

 

[Moonglow]

Drugs should be decriminalized.

The war on drugs is a failure and the OP once again has his head up his ass.

pot should be at least.....the others not so sure about....some are pretty bad and addicting...

yes they are, chemistry has produced drugs that are very strong and some people that get addicted can not stop until death..this has been going on since America's first drug was in the early 20th century...During prohibition alcohol was considered medicinal and could be dispensed by a doctor, needless to say, many entire families had symptoms that needed alcohol to administer...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Was a licensed addictions counselor for the courts for 28 years.

Which means you ran into the dregs, which are actually outliers. The simple fact is that private rehab facilities do a booming business, which means they must find plenty of junkies with the means to pay their fees.

Private in-patient rehabs were a booming business years ago until insurers stopped paying for the common person. Then, everything went outpatient, except for the millionaires.......
Still, a lot of money was to be had keeping them on the therapeutic tit.

Thanks to Obamacare, that kind of stuff is covered again.

By the way, lots of money is made by keeping drug offenders in the criminal justice system too.

Also, just pointing out the obvious, the fact that many police departments routinely serialize cash and automobiles when they arrest on of the drug offenders that you see is not proof that most drug offenders are broke before they get arrested.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Wasnt their fault they were junkies, it was societies fault....poor things

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Was a licensed addictions counselor for the courts for 28 years.

Which means you ran into the dregs, which are actually outliers. The simple fact is that private rehab facilities do a booming business, which means they must find plenty of junkies with the means to pay their fees.

Private in-patient rehabs were a booming business years ago until insurers stopped paying for the common person. Then, everything went outpatient, except for the millionaires.......
Still, a lot of money was to be had keeping them on the therapeutic tit.

I stopped working in that field in 2007, but at least at that point, 70% of our intakes were paid for by insurance - and about 50% of the people applying with insurance were approved.

 

[B. Kidd]

Which means you ran into the dregs, which are actually outliers. The simple fact is that private rehab facilities do a booming business, which means they must find plenty of junkies with the means to pay their fees.

Private in-patient rehabs were a booming business years ago until insurers stopped paying for the common person. Then, everything went outpatient, except for the millionaires.......
Still, a lot of money was to be had keeping them on the therapeutic tit.

Thanks to Obamacare, that kind of stuff is covered again.

By the way, lots of money is made by keeping drug offenders in the criminal justice system too.

Also, just pointing out the obvious, the fact that many police departments routinely serialize cash and automobiles when they arrest on of the drug offenders that you see is not proof that most drug offenders are broke before they get arrested.

I seriously do not think Obamacare covers a 30 day inpatient stay in a private rehab with a duck pond.

 

[High_Gravity]

Well get that halo out and shine that baby up........

LOL. By the way, I masturbated in your corn flakes this morning.

Sorry 'bout that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Private in-patient rehabs were a booming business years ago until insurers stopped paying for the common person. Then, everything went outpatient, except for the millionaires.......
Still, a lot of money was to be had keeping them on the therapeutic tit.

Thanks to Obamacare, that kind of stuff is covered again.

By the way, lots of money is made by keeping drug offenders in the criminal justice system too.

Also, just pointing out the obvious, the fact that many police departments routinely serialize cash and automobiles when they arrest on of the drug offenders that you see is not proof that most drug offenders are broke before they get arrested.

I seriously do not think Obamacare covers a 30 day inpatient stay in a private rehab with a duck pond.

Insurance polices have to treat mental disorders, like substance abuse, exactly the same way they treat any other medical condition.

Parity | SAMHSA Beta

 

[B. Kidd]

Here's your parity.........oops!.....

Despite Obamacare, a gaping hole in addiction treatment

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Wasnt their fault they were junkies, it was societies fault....poor things

Esp those dastardly white people. You know of course, there's a giant conspiracy by whites to keep down blacks.