http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200..._ca_st_pe/crack_laws
appl
As with all presidents, I am giving Obama my full support and benefit of the doubt. I know alot has been said and people nit-pick about what he should or should not be doing, what kind of dog he bought etc, but I feel he is doing the right thing by trying to level the playing field in this instance. tfro

Hopefully this will lead to a reform of all these laws with double standards, too much flexibility and get out of jail free cards for politicans and those with money.
____________________________________________________ Got no love for politicians Or that crazy scene in D.C. It's just a power mad town But the time is ripe for changes There's a growing feeling That taking a chance on a new kind of vision is due I used to trust the media To tell me the truth, tell us the truth But now I've seen the payoffs Everywhere I look Who do you trust when everyone's a crook? Revolution calling Revolution calling Revolution calling you (There's a) Revolution calling Revolution calling Gotta make a change Gotta push, gotta push it on through catch
Original Post
"The administration believes Congress' goal should be to completely eliminate the disparity in prison sentences between crack cocaine and powdered cocaine," Breuer said in written testimony to be delivered Wednesday.---article

There certainly has been enough written on this board, and commented on thoughout African American media in general.

This gives signs of being a very 'straight ahead' attempt to rectify a serious wrong in our justice system.

At some point, and I don't know what that 'point' is, President Obama will be acknowledged for, 'doing right by', the African American population of the United States.

I think he is doing 'just great'.

If this is his 'small stuff', I can't wait for him to 'get really serious'.


PEACE

Jim Chester
I think I remember Clinton defending the disparity on the bases of the level of violence associated with Crack form of cocaine. In Detroit, at the peak of the Crack boom, there were nearly 700 murders a year. There is no question that much of that was related to the crack ya-yo. However, a lot of the violence was from market competition. As police kept busting organizations, if left a market void that existing or new cliques tried to control…..through violence. Had they just let the major cliques run and control things, a lot of violence would have been eliminated because you would not have had the constant new opportunities that people were killing and dying over. So as a means of eliminating violence, it only did the opposite in my opinion, as well as, sending a lot of black first time offenders to jail for a long time. I know many folks from my neighborhood that got locked down for a long time….for first offences. Crack, and the war on drugs, really destroyed a generation of black folks. The war on drugs created a war on black folks and a war between black folks in the streets. There is a lesson to be learned from the Prohibition era.

Things are changing…….however. When the economy was strong states could afford to lock people up. However, it cost between 30 and 40K per year to house an inmate. States are broke, tax revenues are declining, massive budget shortages, etc, means that states cannot afford to be locking folks up for first time offenses for drugs, be in crack or whatever. States are looking for ways to reduce their expenditures and those crazy sentencing laws for drugs were creating way too many prisoners. In fact, the arrest rate of blacks has gone down the last few years, while the arrest for whites have gone up about 40%. Crack is not the scourge it used to be…..thanks be, but it would be a good thing to reduce the sentence disparity and I don’t think there will be much resistance due to the cost savings of not having to prosecute and house all those black folks they were spending over half of their policy man hours rounding up.

It’s something that I would indeed give Obama credit for……but this is rather a SAFE policy, given the net effect of it. The fact that states cannot afford to lock up as many people makes it less controversial.
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
I think I remember Clinton defending the disparity on the bases of the level of violence associated with Crack form of cocaine. In Detroit, at the peak of the Crack boom, there were nearly 700 murders a year. There is no question that much of that was related to the crack ya-yo. However, a lot of the violence was from market competition. As police kept busting organizations, if left a market void that existing or new cliques tried to control…..through violence. Had they just let the major cliques run and control things, a lot of violence would have been eliminated because you would not have had the constant new opportunities that people were killing and dying over. So as a means of eliminating violence, it only did the opposite in my opinion, as well as, sending a lot of black first time offenders to jail for a long time. I know many folks from my neighborhood that got locked down for a long time….for first offences. Crack, and the war on drugs, really destroyed a generation of black folks. The war on drugs created a war on black folks and a war between black folks in the streets. There is a lesson to be learned from the Prohibition era.

Things are changing…….however. When the economy was strong states could afford to lock people up. However, it cost between 30 and 40K per year to house an inmate. States are broke, tax revenues are declining, massive budget shortages, etc, means that states cannot afford to be locking folks up for first time offenses for drugs, be in crack or whatever. States are looking for ways to reduce their expenditures and those crazy sentencing laws for drugs were creating way too many prisoners. In fact, the arrest rate of blacks has gone down the last few years, while the arrest for whites have gone up about 40%. Crack is not the scourge it used to be…..thanks be, but it would be a good thing to reduce the sentence disparity and I don’t think there will be much resistance due to the cost savings of not having to prosecute and house all those black folks they were spending over half of their policy man hours rounding up.

It’s something that I would indeed give Obama credit for……but this is rather a SAFE policy, given the net effect of it. The fact that states cannot afford to lock up as many people makes it less controversial.


I disagree. I think DRUGS hurt us more than the "War on Drugs". It as our values started to decline, the bonds which kept us strong started to weaken. Drugs was a major part of weakening our fondations. I've seen what drugs do to my loved ones and I would never want that poison sold legally. Drugs like crack, destroy people, You don't hear of too many "functional" crackheads. I've seen my Uncle steal from his own mother and use her morgage payments for drug money. He cost her, her house, and wasn't even their for her when she lay dying in a little rat hole apartment. He didn't even care. If anyone should be at war with drugs, it should be African Americans. Because they are certainly at war with us.

But on subject, I hope President Obama can reform the prison system, make it more based on rehabilitation and clean up the culture of violence, drugs, and despair which has made up our prison system. Reforming prisons is never a popular issue, no party ever wants to touch it, because the public doesn't care that much about inmates. But if we can turn those inmates into positive and productive citizens, he will have made a tremendous impact on our country for the better. With the exception of Child Molesters, Rapists, and Murderers, those criminals should be locked up and never let out. If there is one issue I can get behind him on, it would be prison reform. I say base release more on rehabilitation and not time served. Focus on giving prisoners hope that they can rejoin society and still achieve their dreams. Encourage employers to give them a chance. And come down like a hammer on those who fuck up their second chances. But first make sure that they are ready to rejoin society. If we can do this, we turn this country around tomorrow! I really hope he takes a chance and takes on this issue. If he doe's then that alone would make him one of the greatest presidents in American history.
Good points Noah. However, I was under the impression that money was made off of inmates cheap labor and that these crack offenses were automatically federal offenses. Major cities such as Detroit, Chicago, New York, and those that have a significant black population did indeed suffer from the crack epidemic. I'm wondering also, what about those who have already been sentenced under these unjust laws. Will they recieve any relief under Obama's actions? If he is just, he will push for that as well.
Crack sentences should be more severe. Powdered cocaine is altered to make it more potent and more profitable. Intent to do more damage and make more money should bring a stiffer sentence.
quote:
Originally posted by nuggyt:
Crack sentences should be more severe. Powdered cocaine is altered to make it more potent and more profitable. Intent to do more damage and make more money should bring a stiffer sentence.


Powdered cocaine, regardless of if its made into crack or not, is intended to do damage period. So why the disparity in sentencing? The end result is intended to be the same. So why shouldn't the sentencing be?
quote:
Originally posted by Yemaya:
quote:
Originally posted by nuggyt:
Crack sentences should be more severe. Powdered cocaine is altered to make it more potent and more profitable. Intent to do more damage and make more money should bring a stiffer sentence.


Powdered cocaine, regardless of if its made into crack or not, is intended to do damage period. So why the disparity in sentencing? The end result is intended to be the same. So why shouldn't the sentencing be?


The end result is NOT the same. Crack is made to be more potent, cheaper, and more easily transported and sold. Why do you think people were freebasing back in the old days?? Crack's intent is to get people to come back 5 times a day at $10 a pop. The intent is for a stronger and more intense high, and it delivers just that.
quote:
Originally posted by Yemaya:
quote:
Originally posted by nuggyt:
Crack sentences should be more severe. Powdered cocaine is altered to make it more potent and more profitable. Intent to do more damage and make more money should bring a stiffer sentence.


Powdered cocaine, regardless of if its made into crack or not, is intended to do damage period. So why the disparity in sentencing? The end result is intended to be the same. So why shouldn't the sentencing be?


Exactly. Nevertheless, crack cocaine can't EXIST without powder cocaine. Once you get rid of powder cocaine, crack cocaine ceases to exist, therefore it should be more years just for powder cocaine, or at least added on if the provider of the powder was used to make crack. Because by the logic of the law now, it's like as if vitamin C was considered illegal, and the CEOs of Tropicana and Minute Maid were given a slap on the wrist, or probation--yet the guy who invented Tang, gets a life sentence.
quote:
Originally posted by Huey:
quote:
Originally posted by Yemaya:
quote:
Originally posted by nuggyt:
Crack sentences should be more severe. Powdered cocaine is altered to make it more potent and more profitable. Intent to do more damage and make more money should bring a stiffer sentence.


Powdered cocaine, regardless of if its made into crack or not, is intended to do damage period. So why the disparity in sentencing? The end result is intended to be the same. So why shouldn't the sentencing be?


Exactly. Nevertheless, crack cocaine can't EXIST without powder cocaine. Once you get rid of powder cocaine, crack cocaine ceases to exist, therefore it should be more years just for powder cocaine, or at least added on if the provider of the powder was used to make crack. Because by the logic of the law now, it's like as if vitamin C was considered illegal, and the CEOs of Tropicana and Minute Maid were given a slap on the wrist, or probation--yet the guy who invented Tang, gets a life sentence.



It is not the product, it is the malice of forethought, that makes the punishment for one greater than the other. Without the INTENT to get people higher more intensely and more quickly and sell the product at at lower price, there would be no crack. The sentence for rock is on top of the sentence for powerder, as it should be. Much like murder in the first or second degree.
quote:
Originally posted by nuggyt:
quote:
Originally posted by Huey:
quote:
Originally posted by Yemaya:
quote:
Originally posted by nuggyt:
Crack sentences should be more severe. Powdered cocaine is altered to make it more potent and more profitable. Intent to do more damage and make more money should bring a stiffer sentence.


Powdered cocaine, regardless of if its made into crack or not, is intended to do damage period. So why the disparity in sentencing? The end result is intended to be the same. So why shouldn't the sentencing be?


Exactly. Nevertheless, crack cocaine can't EXIST without powder cocaine. Once you get rid of powder cocaine, crack cocaine ceases to exist, therefore it should be more years just for powder cocaine, or at least added on if the provider of the powder was used to make crack. Because by the logic of the law now, it's like as if vitamin C was considered illegal, and the CEOs of Tropicana and Minute Maid were given a slap on the wrist, or probation--yet the guy who invented Tang, gets a life sentence.



It is not the product, it is the malice of forethought, that makes the punishment for one greater than the other. Without the INTENT to get people higher more intensely and more quickly and sell the product at at lower price, there would be no crack. The sentence for rock is on top of the sentence for powerder, as it should be. Much like murder in the first or second degree.



Which is why you also get the powdered dealers MORE time who provide the coke for crack dealers. Just like those who shoots a person in an armed robbery gets more time, than a person who points a gun in the armed robbery, or the guy who's paid to be the lookout. It's more than just malice of forethought, it's about supply and demand. The demand will be gone, if the supply is gone. If Pepsi all of a sudden goes out of business, Mountain Dew goes out of business as well, because it's made by Pepsi. Do You Get It Now?
quote:
Originally posted by Huey:
quote:
Originally posted by nuggyt:
quote:
Originally posted by Huey:
quote:
Originally posted by Yemaya:
quote:
Originally posted by nuggyt:
Crack sentences should be more severe. Powdered cocaine is altered to make it more potent and more profitable. Intent to do more damage and make more money should bring a stiffer sentence.


Powdered cocaine, regardless of if its made into crack or not, is intended to do damage period. So why the disparity in sentencing? The end result is intended to be the same. So why shouldn't the sentencing be?


Exactly. Nevertheless, crack cocaine can't EXIST without powder cocaine. Once you get rid of powder cocaine, crack cocaine ceases to exist, therefore it should be more years just for powder cocaine, or at least added on if the provider of the powder was used to make crack. Because by the logic of the law now, it's like as if vitamin C was considered illegal, and the CEOs of Tropicana and Minute Maid were given a slap on the wrist, or probation--yet the guy who invented Tang, gets a life sentence.



It is not the product, it is the malice of forethought, that makes the punishment for one greater than the other. Without the INTENT to get people higher more intensely and more quickly and sell the product at at lower price, there would be no crack. The sentence for rock is on top of the sentence for powerder, as it should be. Much like murder in the first or second degree.



Which is why you also get the powdered dealers MORE time who provide the coke for crack dealers. Just like those who shoots a person in an armed robbery gets more time, than a person who points a gun in the armed robbery, or the guy who's paid to be the lookout.


You are not using logic you are using your bias. The guy who takes the powder cocaine and makes it into a more potent/lethal is responsible for doing so. HE is the one who chooses to transform it. By your bias plagued logic, the makers of cold medicine should be to blame when their product is made into meth. The products are NOT the same. One dealer chooses to alter the product. One user chooses to purchase the altered product. They are not the same, the consequences should not be the same.
There is no difference between drugs, and 'the war on drugs'.

They support each other.

And that is not simply cynicism.

There is no mystery on how to solve the problem.

The biggest obstacle is how to do it without putting your friends in jail.

And then there is, of course, ALL...THAT....MONEY!!!!!!!!

PEACE

Jim Chester
Huey...you make a good point that is not really up for debate...it is like arresting me for making explosives but letting the guy off easier that provided me the gunpowder...man that is a no-brainer for real....I couldn't have done schit without their help....
Maybe if we stop recycling criminals and focus on rehibililation and education. I say no one should leave until they are ready to rejoin and contribute to society. Repeat offenders commit the majority of crimes. If we can reduce that number, the drug lords will have fewer salesmen. Also I'm for forced rehab. I would consider it a quarantine, as many of those on drugs feed the infection. The cycle of violence would not have it's fuel if we too addicts off of the streets. Also research medicines and treatments to help them defeat their addictions.

I know there are civil rights issues involved. But I really think you can classify many types of drug addictions as insanity. If we focus the money on fighting cartels on drug rehab and treatment, as well as prison reform and rehabilitation, then we take away their sales force and clientele.
quote:
Originally posted by joeodd:
Maybe if we stop recycling criminals and focus on rehibililation and education. I say no one should leave until they are ready to rejoin and contribute to society. Repeat offenders commit the majority of crimes. If we can reduce that number, the drug lords will have fewer salesmen. Also I'm for forced rehab. I would consider it a quarantine, as many of those on drugs feed the infection. The cycle of violence would not have it's fuel if we too addicts off of the streets. Also research medicines and treatments to help them defeat their addictions.

I know there are civil rights issues involved. But I really think you can classify many types of drug addictions as insanity. If we focus the money on fighting cartels on drug rehab and treatment, as well as prison reform and rehabilitation, then we take away their sales force and clientele.


This is precisely the Obama plan! He said a couple of weeks back that he planned to introduce a solution of treatment/rehab vs. prison. I think it is a most excellent idea. tfro
quote:
Originally posted by Huey:
quote:
Originally posted by Yemaya:
quote:
Originally posted by nuggyt:
Crack sentences should be more severe. Powdered cocaine is altered to make it more potent and more profitable. Intent to do more damage and make more money should bring a stiffer sentence.


Powdered cocaine, regardless of if its made into crack or not, is intended to do damage period. So why the disparity in sentencing? The end result is intended to be the same. So why shouldn't the sentencing be?


Exactly. Nevertheless, crack cocaine can't EXIST without powder cocaine. Once you get rid of powder cocaine, crack cocaine ceases to exist, therefore it should be more years just for powder cocaine, or at least added on if the provider of the powder was used to make crack. Because by the logic of the law now, it's like as if vitamin C was considered illegal, and the CEOs of Tropicana and Minute Maid were given a slap on the wrist, or probation--yet the guy who invented Tang, gets a life sentence.


thanks tfro yeah
quote:
Originally posted by nuggyt:
It is not the product, it is the malice of forethought, that makes the punishment for one greater than the other. Without the INTENT to get people higher more intensely and more quickly and sell the product at at lower price, there would be no crack. The sentence for rock is on top of the sentence for powerder, as it should be. Much like murder in the first or second degree.
Some questions... Do we see this same kind of penalty disparity between selling regular cocaine and non-crack freebase cocaine? Or between regular heroin and freebase heroin?

During prohibition, were there stiffer sentences for trafficking in whiskey vs. trafficking in wine? In modern day dram shop law -- in which it's illegal to serve alcohol to someone once they've become visibly intoxicated -- is there a stiffer penalty depending on the alcohol content of the drink served?

What about other kinds of crimes? is there a mandatory minimum sentence for a hit and run driver of a Hummer, over and above that for the driver of a Mini Cooper?

In any event, a lot of people who didn't have anything to do with the powder-to-rock conversion process -- including mules and runners -- got these ridiculous sentences, and these aren't people whose acts can be said to have been done with "malice aforethought."
quote:
Originally posted by nuggyt:
Crack sentences should be more severe. Powdered cocaine is altered to make it more potent and more profitable. Intent to do more damage and make more money should bring a stiffer sentence.


Hmmm....

quote:
... The intent is for a stronger and more intense high, and it delivers just that.


Confused


------------------------------------------------

Less Disparity Urged in Cocaine Sentencing
Published: Wednesday, November 20, 1996

On the assumption that crack cocaine creates more addicts and promotes more violence than powdered cocaine, Federal law for a decade has dealt far more harshly with crack dealers and users than with others caught with more traditional forms of the illicit drug.

Now, two psychologists specializing in drug addiction have determined that the physiological and psychoactive effects of different forms of cocaine are so similar as to make the existing discrepancy in punishment ''excessive.''

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/11...aine-sentencing.html
------------------------------------------------

quote:

111th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 265

To target cocaine kingpins and address sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 7, 2009

[b] Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas introduced the following bill...



SEC. 2. Findings.

Congress finds the following...

(9) Most of the assumptions on which the current penalty structure was based have turned out to be unfounded.

(10) Studies comparing usage of powder and crack cocaine have shown that there is little difference between the two forms of the drug and fundamentally undermine the current quantity-based sentencing disparity. More specifically, the studies have shown the following:

(A) Both forms of cocaine cause identical effects, although crack is smoked, while powder cocaine is typically snorted. Epidemiological data show that smoking a drug delivers it to the brain more rapidly, which increases likelihood of addiction. Therefore, differences in the typical method of administration of the two forms of the drug, and not differences in the inherent properties of the two forms of the drug, make crack cocaine potentially more addictive to typical users than powder cocaine. Both forms of the drug are addictive, however, and the treatment protocol for the drug is the same regardless of the form of the drug the patient has used.

(B) Violence committed by crack users is relatively rare, and overall violence has decreased for both powder and crack cocaine offenses. Almost all crack-related violence is systemic violence that occurs within the drug distribution process. Sentencing enhancements are better suited to punish associated violence, which are separate, pre-existing crimes in and of themselves.

(C) The negative effects of prenatal exposure to crack cocaine were vastly overstated. They are identical to the effects of prenatal exposure to powder cocaine and do not serve as a justification for the sentencing disparity between crack and powder.

(D) Although Congress in the mid-1980s was understandably concerned that the low-cost and potency of crack cocaine would fuel an epidemic of use by minors, the epidemic of crack cocaine use by young people never materialized to the extent feared. In fact, in 2005, the rate of powder cocaine use among young adults was almost 7 times as high as the rate of crack cocaine use. Furthermore, sentencing data suggest that young people do not play a major role in crack cocaine trafficking at the Federal level.

(E) The current 100 to 1 penalty structure undermines various congressional objectives set forth in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. Data collected by the United States Sentencing Commission show that Federal resources have been targeted at offenders who are subject to the mandatory minimum sentences, which sweep in low-level crack cocaine users and dealers.

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc111/h265_ih.xml
I still believe that initially there was a plan, in the late 60’s, to pump a militant black community with drugs. Drugs helped to kill the black power movement as alpha males who would be leading or joining organizations started becoming dealers or strung out on drugs. Remember, J. Edgar Hoover claimed in the 60’s that Black militancy was the number one threat to the internal security of the nation. Before then murder rates were relatively low, and then skyrocketed in the early seventies when Heroin hit the cities. Once the momentum was started, it became self perpetuating as the economic opportunities the trade offered poor and middle class blacks were very lucrative. I cannot speak for many other cities, but Drugs really made Detroit a hellish place to live. The number one employer of black men in Detroit is the drug dealing industry and the prisons of full of Detroiters caught up.

I can guarantee you that if you go to most inner city communities that have been ravaged by drugs and drug violence…..that the older people living in these communities, afraid to walk the streets, to go to their cars and living behind bars…….they WANT harsh sentencing. They don’t have a problem with the idea of harsher sentencing for crack because they are fed up with the violence. My father is one of them. He grew up in the Delta as a share cropper. When we were growing up he would say “the white man is the devil”. Today, he sees the devil embodied in young baggy pants wearing hoods. That is all he talks about (not literally). He has been robbed a couple times and house broken into. He does not give a sh1t if the sentencing for crack is higher than for powder……he just wants the thugs in jail. However, the younger people are the ones more likely to object to the laws, because they are the ones likely to get caught up and suffer the consequence of the disparity. When people live around crime, especially older people, they get fed up. They have they subdue their racial injustice sympathies due to anger and the problems these dealers and users are creating for their communities and lives.

I personally think that they should legalize drugs…….then spend the billions that were going on the war on drugs, incarceration and the like, and use that money for a public campaign to discourage the use of drugs. Of course, there is a consequence of this approach as well. It will likely increase drug usage somewhat and many communities will not want that. However, in the inner cities, the reduction of drug related violence from trafficking would more than offset the problems created from increase usage. Communities that don’t have a lot of drug related violence now would not experience a net gain from legalizing drugs…..but the black community would. The drugs are already saturated in our communities……as if they were legal, so I don’t see legalization creating increased usage in the black community.
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
I still believe that initially there was a plan, in the late 60’s, to pump a militant black community with drugs. Drugs helped to kill the black power movement as alpha males who would be leading or joining organizations started becoming dealers or strung out on drugs. Remember, J. Edgar Hoover claimed in the 60’s that Black militancy was the number one threat to the internal security of the nation. Before then murder rates were relatively low, and then skyrocketed in the early seventies when Heroin hit the cities. Once the momentum was started, it became self perpetuating as the economic opportunities the trade offered poor and middle class blacks were very lucrative. I cannot speak for many other cities, but Drugs really made Detroit a hellish place to live. The number one employer of black men in Detroit is the drug dealing industry and the prisons of full of Detroiters caught up.

I can guarantee you that if you go to most inner city communities that have been ravaged by drugs and drug violence…..that the older people living in these communities, afraid to walk the streets, to go to their cars and living behind bars…….they WANT harsh sentencing. They don’t have a problem with the idea of harsher sentencing for crack because they are fed up with the violence. My father is one of them. He grew up in the Delta as a share cropper. When we were growing up he would say “the white man is the devil”. Today, he sees the devil embodied in young baggy pants wearing hoods. That is all he talks about (not literally). He has been robbed a couple times and house broken into. He does not give a sh1t if the sentencing for crack is higher than for powder……he just wants the thugs in jail. However, the younger people are the ones more likely to object to the laws, because they are the ones likely to get caught up and suffer the consequence of the disparity. When people live around crime, especially older people, they get fed up. They have they subdue their racial injustice sympathies due to anger and the problems these dealers and users are creating for their communities and lives.

I personally think that they should legalize drugs…….then spend the billions that were going on the war on drugs, incarceration and the like, and use that money for a public campaign to discourage the use of drugs. Of course, there is a consequence of this approach as well. It will likely increase drug usage somewhat and many communities will not want that. However, in the inner cities, the reduction of drug related violence from trafficking would more than offset the problems created from increase usage. Communities that don’t have a lot of drug related violence now would not experience a net gain from legalizing drugs…..but the black community would. The drugs are already saturated in our communities……as if they were legal, so I don’t see legalization creating increased usage in the black community.


I think usage should be decriminalized and considered a public health issue. Addicts should be forced into rehab. We can save money by not locking up non-violent dealers, rather just take their product and money away, destroy the product and use the money to help pay for National Rehabilitation. We should offer free trade school to dealers. Take away their customers and push them toward trade school. Offer harsher sentencing for other crimes they may move into if the drug market takes a hit, which it would if we had forced rehab for junkies. We need to focus on curing addiction, to all drugs. This way we take away the demand.
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
I think I remember Clinton defending the disparity on the bases of the level of violence associated with Crack form of cocaine. In Detroit, at the peak of the Crack boom, there were nearly 700 murders a year.


Logic, then, suggests that we should decriminalize all drug use and eliminate all of the attached violence that comes from the underground drug trade - and support the deficit and fund drug rehab and education programs while you're at it.
quote:
Originally posted by nuggyt:
quote:
Originally posted by Huey:
quote:
Originally posted by nuggyt:
quote:
Originally posted by Huey:
quote:
Originally posted by Yemaya:
quote:
Originally posted by nuggyt:
Crack sentences should be more severe. Powdered cocaine is altered to make it more potent and more profitable. Intent to do more damage and make more money should bring a stiffer sentence.


Powdered cocaine, regardless of if its made into crack or not, is intended to do damage period. So why the disparity in sentencing? The end result is intended to be the same. So why shouldn't the sentencing be?


Exactly. Nevertheless, crack cocaine can't EXIST without powder cocaine. Once you get rid of powder cocaine, crack cocaine ceases to exist, therefore it should be more years just for powder cocaine, or at least added on if the provider of the powder was used to make crack. Because by the logic of the law now, it's like as if vitamin C was considered illegal, and the CEOs of Tropicana and Minute Maid were given a slap on the wrist, or probation--yet the guy who invented Tang, gets a life sentence.



It is not the product, it is the malice of forethought, that makes the punishment for one greater than the other. Without the INTENT to get people higher more intensely and more quickly and sell the product at at lower price, there would be no crack. The sentence for rock is on top of the sentence for powerder, as it should be. Much like murder in the first or second degree.



Which is why you also get the powdered dealers MORE time who provide the coke for crack dealers. Just like those who shoots a person in an armed robbery gets more time, than a person who points a gun in the armed robbery, or the guy who's paid to be the lookout.


You are not using logic you are using your bias. The guy who takes the powder cocaine and makes it into a more potent/lethal is responsible for doing so. HE is the one who chooses to transform it. By your bias plagued logic, the makers of cold medicine should be to blame when their product is made into meth. The products are NOT the same. One dealer chooses to alter the product. One user chooses to purchase the altered product. They are not the same, the consequences should not be the same.


I think the user is the victim here. I believe that the 'war on drugs' should be focused much more on manufacturers and dealers etc. and less on people. If a person breaks a law and in any way harms another (or their property or possessions etc.) while under the influence - then they should be dealt with. What I choose to consume in the privacy of my own home should not be the government's concern. Particularly when there are a variety of legal drugs (alcohol, nicotine, etc.) that are government sanctioned while others are not.
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
quote:
Originally posted by nuggyt:
quote:
Originally posted by Huey:
quote:
Originally posted by nuggyt:
quote:
Originally posted by Huey:
quote:
Originally posted by Yemaya:
quote:
Originally posted by nuggyt:
Crack sentences should be more severe. Powdered cocaine is altered to make it more potent and more profitable. Intent to do more damage and make more money should bring a stiffer sentence.


Powdered cocaine, regardless of if its made into crack or not, is intended to do damage period. So why the disparity in sentencing? The end result is intended to be the same. So why shouldn't the sentencing be?


Exactly. Nevertheless, crack cocaine can't EXIST without powder cocaine. Once you get rid of powder cocaine, crack cocaine ceases to exist, therefore it should be more years just for powder cocaine, or at least added on if the provider of the powder was used to make crack. Because by the logic of the law now, it's like as if vitamin C was considered illegal, and the CEOs of Tropicana and Minute Maid were given a slap on the wrist, or probation--yet the guy who invented Tang, gets a life sentence.



It is not the product, it is the malice of forethought, that makes the punishment for one greater than the other. Without the INTENT to get people higher more intensely and more quickly and sell the product at at lower price, there would be no crack. The sentence for rock is on top of the sentence for powerder, as it should be. Much like murder in the first or second degree.



Which is why you also get the powdered dealers MORE time who provide the coke for crack dealers. Just like those who shoots a person in an armed robbery gets more time, than a person who points a gun in the armed robbery, or the guy who's paid to be the lookout.


You are not using logic you are using your bias. The guy who takes the powder cocaine and makes it into a more potent/lethal is responsible for doing so. HE is the one who chooses to transform it. By your bias plagued logic, the makers of cold medicine should be to blame when their product is made into meth. The products are NOT the same. One dealer chooses to alter the product. One user chooses to purchase the altered product. They are not the same, the consequences should not be the same.


I think the user is the victim here. I believe that the 'war on drugs' should be focused much more on manufacturers and dealers etc. and less on people. If a person breaks a law and in any way harms another (or their property or possessions etc.) while under the influence - then they should be dealt with. What I choose to consume in the privacy of my own home should not be the government's concern. Particularly when there are a variety of legal drugs (alcohol, nicotine, etc.) that are government sanctioned while others are not.


I agree to an extent. If you're a drug addict or drunk, you pose a significant danger to society. Drug addicts support the violent drug trade and in some cases commit acts of violence or neglect their children. Drunks have the same effect on families and they of course can cause traffic accidents. I say if you are a parent and you're an alcoholic or drug addict, you should be put in forced rehab for the safety of the child or children. We should not spend our tax money on putting these people in jail, but rather we should fund finding a cure to chemical addictions like drugs and alcohol. We would dry up the drug market real quick if we put users in forced rehab. I think it's cheaper and more effective to find a cure, maybe even create drug free towns for people who are recovering.
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:

I think the user is the victim here. I believe that the 'war on drugs' should be focused much more on manufacturers and dealers etc. and less on people. If a person breaks a law and in any way harms another (or their property or possessions etc.) while under the influence - then they should be dealt with. What I choose to consume in the privacy of my own home should not be the government's concern. Particularly when there are a variety of legal drugs (alcohol, nicotine, etc.) that are government sanctioned while others are not.



I wonder if people who've had their homes and lives destroyed by drug addicts feel so liberal about drugs. This country is full of drug addicts and we should be trying to decrease drug use, not increase drug availability.
Originally posted by Ocatchings
quote:
As with all presidents, I am giving Obama my full support and benefit of the doubt. I know alot has been said and people nit-pick about what he should or should not be doing, what kind of dog he bought etc, but I feel he is doing the right thing by trying to level the playing field in this instance.


fro I totally AGREE! Anything is better than what has been offered in the last 400 years.... And the media/republicans has been looking high and low to "get him" with sumthin....but! All the while...ignoring what Bush and boys have done to damn near DESTROY this economy. If the shoe was on the other foot...it would be a "talk show" [probably for 60 minutes] on cable devoted on how President Obama focked up the nation with two wars plus a depressive economy....but! I read somewhere they even tried to BLAME my President when Bush was in office...saying that while he was a senator he approved the stimulus package. But BUSH is the one who got us in this mess and offered the stimulus package to the banks/auto dealers......FIRST! And everybody knows...whiteboy sniff on that powder in the SAME intensity as crack heads smoke their dope....so both offenders should get similar ramifications...then for the FIRST time in my view...things [in terms of crime fitting the sentence] will be a little fair. With emphasis on LITTLE...but! Gotta start somewhere....right? Cuz powder and rocks DESTROYS families....lives....community in the same way.

fro
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:

I think the user is the victim here. I believe that the 'war on drugs' should be focused much more on manufacturers and dealers etc. and less on people. If a person breaks a law and in any way harms another (or their property or possessions etc.) while under the influence - then they should be dealt with. What I choose to consume in the privacy of my own home should not be the government's concern. Particularly when there are a variety of legal drugs (alcohol, nicotine, etc.) that are government sanctioned while others are not.



I wonder if people who've had their homes and lives destroyed by drug addicts feel so liberal about drugs. This country is full of drug addicts and we should be trying to decrease drug use, not increase drug availability.


You miss the point. Those who favor decriminalization are no less intolerant of drug use. They just acknowledge that the current strategy hasn't worked and - like former Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke - see the potential in fighting drug abuse from a public health perspective. Which do you think will have a better chance at helping someone get off drugs, throwing them in jail or providing them with access to medical care and drug (and other) counseling to help them?

Even if you disagree with the above notion, let's be clear. Our drug laws have nothing to do with helping people or some kind of moral intolerance for drug use. It's largely about a social tool to control poor and black men and secondarily - to profit from their labor.

And btw - who do you think is putting the drugs there in the first place?
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:

Which do you think will have a better chance at helping someone get off drugs, throwing them in jail or providing them with access to medical care and drug (and other) counseling to help them?


I don't miss the point. I've seen newborns in withdrawal and drugged out mamas too fried-brained to bond with the child...among other things...

I reject this narrow framing of the issue. Crackheads, methheads, coke sniffers, and pill heads of assorted varieties wreak havoc on their families and their communities, regardless of whether they are worried about being caught by the cops. That's the nature of drug addiction. Frequently people are arrested a bunch of times before they get some serious consequences. Sometimes a person is only jolted out of a drug crazed lifestyle when the door of a cell is slammed shut on them and they can't steal anymore money out of grandmom's purse, t.v.'s out of cousin's house, or pimp out their neice for their next high.

I would agree that it's a public health issue and that sentencing disparities should be eliminated, but it's irresponsible to go around all willy nilly advocating legalization of dangerous drugs without restriction and without understanding the potential effect on a community.

There's a cruel ugly underbelly of the drug lifestyle and the moment you tell a crackhead or a meth-head the coast is clear, a lot of overdose deaths are going to occur.

it's the nature of narcotics. people don't say "ok. i've had enough. i can't spend my mama's rent check on this. see yall later". they hit it until the consequences are too painful to continue. For some, that's jail. For some that's health problems. For others, that's the loss of family relationships and still others won't stop until death.

This is not just an issue to knock around for debates. These are people's lives and communities your talking about.
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:

I would agree that it's a public health issue and that sentencing disparities should be eliminated, but it's irresponsible to go around all willy nilly advocating legalization of dangerous drugs without restriction and without understanding the potential effect on a community.


The current approach A) has obviously failed miserably as people continue to use drugs despite the potential for incarceration, B) sends people to jail where their drug habits are frequently reinforced and cemented into their lives forever (jail is certainly nothing close to a place to rehabilitate drug users), C) foments increasing violence throughout our communities that could be eliminated by decriminalization (remove the market for the trade trade and dealers etc. are immediately put out of business), D) destroys families by incarcerating millions of people for minor drug offenses.

Moreover, your concern for "dangerous drugs" is curious. How many people are killed by driving under the influence of marijuana? Alcohol and nicotine are many many times more dangerous than many other legal drugs. They kill thousands and thousands of more people every year than so -called illicit drugs. Here's some data:

Annual Causes of Death in the US

Tobacco - 435,000
Alcohol - 365,000
All Illicit Drug Use - Direct and Indirect - 17,000
Marijuana - 0
link

More of the same will not either solve the current drug problems or prevent drugs from being used in the future.

Decriminalization is a progressive idea about how to combat drugs.

quote:
There's a cruel ugly underbelly of the drug lifestyle and the moment you tell a crackhead or a meth-head the coast is clear, a lot of overdose deaths are going to occur.


Here's your misconception. Decriminalization isn't about having a big drug party, it's about fighting drug use via treatment and counseling and other public health tools - that will, no doubt, be far more effective than throwing someone in jail - with other drug users.
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:


Here's your misconception. Decriminalization isn't about having a big drug party, it's about fighting drug use via treatment and counseling and other public health tools - that will, no doubt, be far more effective than throwing someone in jail - with other drug users.



Here's your folly. Decriminalization means that all those reasons why people try to moderate their use of substances would be removed and yes, since the threat of conseequences will be gone, people will go to the extremes and many will die. That's poor public policy.

Will drug dealers become legit occupations instead of the pariahs and community killers that they are now?

Will crackheads and meth cookers be able to roll over to walgreens and pick up a hit?

Will the government take over and tax the export and import of cocaine, heroine, meth, ecstasy and gawd knows what else?

When did the conversation expand from decriminalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana + eliminating sentencing disparities to the dangerously irresponsible advocacy of "legalize all drugs"??? Confused
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:

Moreover, your concern for "dangerous drugs" is curious. How many people are killed by driving under the influence of marijuana?



Attempting to measure the damage done to individuals, families, and communities using only a death report statistic seems narrowly focused since it is widely known that death, while certainly a severe consequence, isn't the only damage done by the use of drugs like crack, meth, heroine and other hard drugs.

Where are the stats on the number of medical problems caused by drug use?

Where are the stats on the number of jobs lost due to inability to function adequately on the job because of drugs?

Where are the stats on the number of family relationships which have been damaged or destroyed because of drug use?

Where are the stats on the number of parents who are unable to care for their children due to their involvement with drugs?

Where are the stats on the number of children neglected, pimped out, placed in fostercare, left with grandmom or even left with strangers as a result of drug use?

Where are the stats on the number of communities where it's unsafe to walk outside due to drug activity?

Again, advocating for the decriminalization of small amounts of marijuana and eradicating sentencing disparities is one thing, but advocating for the legalization of all drugs is irresponsible and detrimental to the public health and safety.
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:

Moreover, your concern for "dangerous drugs" is curious. How many people are killed by driving under the influence of marijuana?



Attempting to measure the damage done to individuals, families, and communities using only a death report statistic seems narrowly focused since it is widely known that death, while certainly a severe consequence, isn't the only damage done by the use of drugs like crack, meth, heroine and other hard drugs.

Where are the stats on the number of medical problems caused by drug use?

Where are the stats on the number of jobs lost due to inability to function adequately on the job because of drugs?

Where are the stats on the number of family relationships which have been damaged or destroyed because of drug use?

Where are the stats on the number of parents who are unable to care for their children due to their involvement with drugs?

Where are the stats on the number of children neglected, pimped out, placed in fostercare, left with grandmom or even left with strangers as a result of drug use?

Where are the stats on the number of communities where it's unsafe to walk outside due to drug activity?

Again, advocating for the decriminalization of small amounts of marijuana and eradicating sentencing disparities is one thing, but advocating for the legalization of all drugs is irresponsible and detrimental to the public health and safety.


So you advocate more of the same? How can you be so concerned about people and families yet, seemingly, support a system that gets a "0" grade - that is wholly ineffectual in combating drug use?
Something for your consideration:

quote:
"Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does."

TIME: Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work?
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
Something for your consideration:

quote:
"Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does."

TIME: Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work?


Its a No Brainer! Either our country has no brains or there is a vested interest in what drugs are doing to some communities.....
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
Something for your consideration:

quote:
"Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does."

TIME: Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work?



quote:
But the recently released results of a report commissioned by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, suggest otherwise.


quote:
"Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research.



i'll admit upon first glance it seemss interesting, but the fact that the libertarian think tank CATO institute commissioned it

and

the fact that a lawyer, not sociologists, or medical researchers conducted the research, would suggest that we need additional data before jumping on the "let people smoke snort and shoot up whatever suits their fancy and consequences be damned bandwagon"
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
Yeah MBM....next time get a "Liberal" study....if you want credibility...LOL. Ignore all the evidence......look at the messenger....LOL


What makes you think that NS would not have been similarly suspect if the study had y been commissioned by "HighTimes"?

We should always consider the messenger before falling behind any study.
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:

I think the user is the victim here. I believe that the 'war on drugs' should be focused much more on manufacturers and dealers etc. and less on people. If a person breaks a law and in any way harms another (or their property or possessions etc.) while under the influence - then they should be dealt with. What I choose to consume in the privacy of my own home should not be the government's concern. Particularly when there are a variety of legal drugs (alcohol, nicotine, etc.) that are government sanctioned while others are not.



I wonder if people who've had their homes and lives destroyed by drug addicts feel so liberal about drugs. This country is full of drug addicts and we should be trying to decrease drug use, not increase drug availability.


You miss the point. Those who favor decriminalization are no less intolerant of drug use. They just acknowledge that the current strategy hasn't worked and - like former Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke - see the potential in fighting drug abuse from a public health perspective. Which do you think will have a better chance at helping someone get off drugs, throwing them in jail or providing them with access to medical care and drug (and other) counseling to help them?

Even if you disagree with the above notion, let's be clear. Our drug laws have nothing to do with helping people or some kind of moral intolerance for drug use. It's largely about a social tool to control poor and black men and secondarily - to profit from their labor.

And btw - who do you think is putting the drugs there in the first place?


I've heard this for years. Of course no one ever points to records or proof, that it happened. If there is proof, then why not go to the ACLU and sue the government? I don't find it beyond belief that some business minded people found a way to get drugs into the inner cities by bribing officials. Curruption was wide spread back in the 60's and 70's. It's not beyond belief that the government was clueless as to who started the inner city/international drug trade. Frank Lucas flew under the radar for years before they believed he was the drug kingpin of Harlem. I don't mind blaming the government, but I still need proof.
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:

Yeah MBM....next time get a "Liberal" study....if you want credibility...LOL. Ignore all the evidence......look at the messenger....LOL



Can you really be that dense in the head? You are so busy trying to be flip that you don't mind looking like an azz. Roll Eyes

I said nothing about liberals or conservatives.

The cato institute has an agenda: promoting the philosophy of libertarianism, i.e. less government interference, less government programs, less government period, which ties in conveniently with no prohibition of narcotic drugs.

If they commissioned a "study" then it's worth knowing what they promote and how it might influence their results.

Not to mention the fact that they chose a lawyer, and not scientific or social researchers to conduct the research.

If you had any sense, you'd know that
"conclusions" are not the same as "evidence" and are frequently proven false or even reversed.


Do you have a problem with all black women? or just the ones who don't fall for your biased self hating negro punk azz BS?.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×