From: tony cooper on
On Fri, 7 May 2010 09:47:35 -0400, "Peter"
<peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote:

>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:vdv7u5lhs6psehi8gce41t5ih8cl3rrph3(a)4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 6 May 2010 23:50:11 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> I don't agree there, either. A person is, or is not, a convicted
>>>>>> felon. Certain crimes are designated as felonies. We don't need
>>>>>> another layer of government to decide if this convicted felon should
>>>>>> or should not be treated differently from that convicted felon.
>>>>>
>>>>>If circumstances of the crime have a bearing on sentencing why should
>>>>>they
>>>>>not have bearing on restoration of privelleges.
>>>>
>>>> 1. Who is going to decide?
>>>>
>>>> 2. The sentencing is set before the felon goes to jail. Any
>>>> restoration of privileges has be determined after the felon is
>>>> released and is off parole and probation and based partially on the
>>>> person's behavior while incarcerated and on parole or probation. This
>>>> means the setting up of some sort of review board that does not
>>>> presently exist.
>>>
>>>I should think at least the preliminary work could be done as part of the
>>>parole process. Whatever they need to consider during that, should have
>>>some
>>>bearing on the question of restoration of rights later.
>>
>> You can't add to the workload without adding to the work staff.
>> Prisons are presently over-crowded and understaffed.
>
>
>I wonder how many are in prision because of the marijuana and/or the
>Rockefeller drug laws.
>Wouldn't reformation of those laws lighten the work load?

Marijuana offenses range from a misdemeanor to a felony. Whether or
not you agree with the laws in this regard, you *know* what the
penalties are. Almost all of the people in jail or prison for
possession/dealing/growth made a decision to take a chance on going to
jail or prison. That's on them.

Yes, reducing the penalties would reduce the number of people in jail
and prison. Reducing the use would do the same thing.

Misdemeanor offenders go to jail, by the way. Offenders are sent to
jail for one year or less, and to prison for a longer sentence. (Not
all jurisdictions draw the line quite so sharply, though.)

I don't have strong feelings either way or de-criminalizing marijuana.
I see points on both sides of that issue. Given the right to vote on
the issue, I'd vote for de-criminalization but I wouldn't lead any
movement to do so. 'Course I don't use the stuff so I don't have a
dog in that fight.







--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Peter on
"Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
news:D8adnRV2I40Ox3nWnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
> Peter wrote:
>> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
>> news:ffOdnf0qgpHBtHnWnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>>> news:4be32172$0$27753$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>>> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:0PidnfYBjd7ycX_WnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:hrudm3$638$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Unless they are suddenly afflicted by a severe attack of Humpty
>>>>> Dumptyism (or a couple more Obama radical-lib appointees, which
>>>>> effectively amounts to the same thing), they will not.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Exactly which "radical-lib" was appointed by our President?
>>>
>>> Obviously, Sotomayor.
>>>
>>>> Which decision[s] made prior to appointment, of his one appointee
>>>> do you object to?
>>>
>>> Most famously, her ruling against white firefighters in New Haven, on
>>> purely racist grounds. She was then and undoubtedly still is in
>>> favor of discriminating against white males. That ruling of hers was
>>> of course overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. Now she's part of
>>> that court, which is bad news for anyone who cares about justice.
>>>
>>> The "wise Latina woman" remains what she always has been, in favor of
>>> preferential treatment for certain races and genders, such as her
>>> own. She has as much as said she wants to use the court for her own
>>> political agenda, rather than to support the Constitution as it
>>> stands. She made a joke of it on at least one occasion.
>>
>>
>> That's what I thought you were talking about. Her original decision,
>> which was fortunately overturned, was based upon precedents that
>> existed at the time of her decision.
>
> What precedents?

The ones upholding affirmative action. I'm sure you were aware that in Ricci
she ruled against white and Hispanic firefighters. Acccording to my notes,
she is Hispanic. Your statement that she gave preferential treatment to
Hispanic people is contrary to the decision you are relying on.


>
>> That decision doesn't make her a
>> racist. We will have to wait and see her subsequent decisions.
>
> I think she's already made it clear what she is. Of course she downplayed
> her agenda during confirmation, as anyone with that sort of agenda would.
>
>> At the risk of starting a flame war, I agree with the the decision
>> that , race or ethnicity should never be a factor in hiring. Having
>> said that, my comment only applies if the hiring tests are not
>> skewed. e.g. if an "intelligence" test included a ;question on the
>> meaning of "pants on the ground" it would be skewed.
>
> I believe the claims that certain population groups consistently score
> lower on intelligence tests because the tests are "skewed" has been pretty
> well debunked.

When? Citation please.


--
Peter

From: Peter on
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:6p39u55hn4o0qmhqbeb3n5bofca53l1s8s(a)4ax.com...

> I'm not sure what you meant by that, but Jeb Bush is the one
> Republican and member of the Bush family that I have respect for.
> There are a few things that Jeb did that I disagreed with, but for the
> most part he was one of our better Governors.

Better than Reubin Askew, who told businessmen who supported Claude Kirk to
leave Florida?


--
Peter
Who helped one of them pack.

From: Peter on
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:obb9u5dtioim7ae4cbuujnk8e4rti2b0ro(a)4ax.com...
> On Fri, 7 May 2010 09:47:35 -0400, "Peter"
> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote:

>>I wonder how many are in prision because of the marijuana and/or the
>>Rockefeller drug laws.
>>Wouldn't reformation of those laws lighten the work load?
>
> Marijuana offenses range from a misdemeanor to a felony. Whether or
> not you agree with the laws in this regard, you *know* what the
> penalties are. Almost all of the people in jail or prison for
> possession/dealing/growth made a decision to take a chance on going to
> jail or prison. That's on them.
>
> Yes, reducing the penalties would reduce the number of people in jail
> and prison. Reducing the use would do the same thing.
>
> Misdemeanor offenders go to jail, by the way. Offenders are sent to
> jail for one year or less, and to prison for a longer sentence. (Not
> all jurisdictions draw the line quite so sharply, though.)
>
> I don't have strong feelings either way or de-criminalizing marijuana.
> I see points on both sides of that issue. Given the right to vote on
> the issue, I'd vote for de-criminalization but I wouldn't lead any
> movement to do so. 'Course I don't use the stuff so I don't have a
> dog in that fight.
>

See my response to the Duck. I understand that a defense that the law is
wrong is a pretty poor defense. Alcohol and nicotine are pretty potent legal
drugs. There is no known medical use for meth and a host of the "designer
drugs." I would like to see Federal sentence reformation in the area of drug
use and federal legalization of marijuana for medical use. Perhaps
decriminalization for non-medical use.
When Rush Limbaugh gets caught with excessive quantities of oxicodone, he's
deemed addicted and sent to a treatment clinic. When xxxx gets caught
selling marijuana he becomes subject to sentencing under the Rockefeller
drug laws. I haven't touched marijuana in over twenty years, so I have no
personal axe to grind either. but, I am simply expressing an opinion that we
waste too much resources enforcing laws whose social benefit is marginal.


--
Peter

From: Peter on
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2010050717590918024-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2010-05-07 17:31:55 -0700, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net>
> said:
>
>> On Fri, 7 May 2010 09:47:35 -0400, "Peter"
>> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:vdv7u5lhs6psehi8gce41t5ih8cl3rrph3(a)4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 6 May 2010 23:50:11 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't agree there, either. A person is, or is not, a convicted
>>>>>>>> felon. Certain crimes are designated as felonies. We don't need
>>>>>>>> another layer of government to decide if this convicted felon
>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>> or should not be treated differently from that convicted felon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If circumstances of the crime have a bearing on sentencing why
>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> not have bearing on restoration of privelleges.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Who is going to decide?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. The sentencing is set before the felon goes to jail. Any
>>>>>> restoration of privileges has be determined after the felon is
>>>>>> released and is off parole and probation and based partially on the
>>>>>> person's behavior while incarcerated and on parole or probation.
>>>>>> This
>>>>>> means the setting up of some sort of review board that does not
>>>>>> presently exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> I should think at least the preliminary work could be done as part of
>>>>> the
>>>>> parole process. Whatever they need to consider during that, should
>>>>> have
>>>>> some
>>>>> bearing on the question of restoration of rights later.
>>>>
>>>> You can't add to the workload without adding to the work staff.
>>>> Prisons are presently over-crowded and understaffed.
>>>
>>>
>>> I wonder how many are in prision because of the marijuana and/or the
>>> Rockefeller drug laws.
>>> Wouldn't reformation of those laws lighten the work load?
>>
>> Marijuana offenses range from a misdemeanor to a felony. Whether or
>> not you agree with the laws in this regard, you *know* what the
>> penalties are. Almost all of the people in jail or prison for
>> possession/dealing/growth made a decision to take a chance on going to
>> jail or prison. That's on them.
>>
>> Yes, reducing the penalties would reduce the number of people in jail
>> and prison. Reducing the use would do the same thing.
>>
>> Misdemeanor offenders go to jail, by the way. Offenders are sent to
>> jail for one year or less, and to prison for a longer sentence. (Not
>> all jurisdictions draw the line quite so sharply, though.)
>>
>> I don't have strong feelings either way or de-criminalizing marijuana.
>> I see points on both sides of that issue. Given the right to vote on
>> the issue, I'd vote for de-criminalization but I wouldn't lead any
>> movement to do so. 'Course I don't use the stuff so I don't have a
>> dog in that fight.
>
> Once more, I can only speak for the current situation in California. Here
> marijuana possession for personal use usually ends up in a Court ordered
> "Diversion" program. That diverts the subject to a substance abuse
> program, usually non-residential, which he/she has a year to complete.
> With a certificate of completion the Court will expunge the conviction
> from his/her record.
> Many of these folks get second and third chances, provided there are no
> other crimes committed.
> In the area of dealing in quantities of more than an ounce of marijuana,
> the Feds get involved.
>
> Our big problems are crystal meth, heroin, and powder & crack cocaine.
> There is a myth that the prisons are filled with misunderstood, persecuted
> 60's hippie type pot smokers. Certainly there is a drug connection to many
> crimes, but those drugs are mostly crystal meth, heroin and the real
> biggie, alcohol. Few are serving time for the drug use alone. There is
> usually a primary violent or property crime which goes along with the drug
> use.
> Of those drug users some have serious drug abuse issues, but for the most
> part their drug and alcohol use is not driven by their poor social
> environment as many would have you believe, they are actually responsible
> for getting where they are by being criminals. The drug use is a smoke
> screen, so to speak.
>


Any drug can be abused. Certain drugs, such as crystal meth and H have
little or no known medical value. I also agree that substantial crime is
associated with illegal drug use. While I can't cite statistics, I think
that if distribution and use of certain drugs that have legitimate medical
uses, such as marijuana, were legal, there would be a lower prison
population.

--
Peter