New poll finds increasing support for regulated MJ

A side note: State Budget problems bring about some change.

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

Easing mandatory sentences requires sound solutions

When a crime wave swept over American cities in the 1980s, states reacted with get-tough sentencing policies designed to take criminals off the street. From ''three-time loser'' laws that put away repeat offenders for life to long prison terms for drug convictions, states wanted to send a clear message: If you do the crime, you'll do the time.

Now tough economic times are prompting states to rethink that costly lockup strategy. Last week, the Delaware Legislature approved reduced prison terms for some non-violent drug offenders. In March, a repeal of Michigan's tough minimums went into effect, giving judges more discretion to set prison terms. And most other states are considering reforms of their sentencing laws.

The need by cash-strapped legislatures to close budget gaps may be the wrong reason to ease sentencing rules, but it is driving them to do the right thing. Eliminating mandatory minimums for the least-dangerous offenders is helping to free up space in overcrowded prisons to ensure that violent criminals remain locked up.

That would be good news if the releases were thought out carefully to solve the problems of inflexible mandatory sentencing rules. Trouble is, some states have let their budget woes drive their prison policies. The result: equally rigid rules that decide which criminals get back on the street.

In Kentucky, for example, the state last year ordered every prisoner convicted of non-violent drug and property crimes to be released 90 days early. That plan was suspended this year after an outcry over repeat offenses committed by some new parolees.
Other states, by contrast, have adopted more sensible sentencing reforms that have helped them cut their budgets without increasing their crime rates. Some examples:

* Michigan. It eliminated minimum sentences, including lifetime parole for minor drug possession. The move is expected to save $41 million a year and lead to the release of more than 1,100 inmates, some sentenced to 200 years for non-violent offenses.

* Washington. A law that went into effect this year reduces sentences for minor drug offenses, saving $8 million annually in prison costs. The state is funneling some of that money into drug-treatment programs.

Defenders of mandatory minimums say those stiff sentences reduce crime. They point to a falling crime rate in the past decade, including a drop in murders from 9.6 per 100,000 people in 1991 to 5.6 in 2002.

Long sentences do deter crime -- when they keep dangerous criminals off the street. Yet Northeastern University criminologist James Fox says that goal is undercut when those who commit violent crimes not covered by mandatory sentences receive short terms to make room for all of the non-violent drug offenders filling U.S. prisons.

One-fourth of prisoners are drug offenders, and the overwhelming majority have not committed violent crimes, according to the Justice Department . While handing them 50- to 200-year sentences helps politicians look as if they are tough on crime, those stiff terms don't actually reduce crime, according to studies by liberal, conservative and non-partisan groups.
That's why mindless sentencing policies need to be corrected -- as long as the answer isn't mindless release plans.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...&e=3&u=/usatoday/20030701/cm_usatoday/5287085

 

The info here begs to differ:

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/gunsuits.html#stats

Pertinent info:

"According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%, a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%, family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%. "

This show that at least 80% of inmates possessing a gun did not buy it from a 'legitimate' source.

Why would the regulated/licensed purchase of drugs such as mar1juana and cocaine be classified as 'health care'?

 

Uh, yeah, exactly the point I was trying to make when you asked:

"Why would someone go to a criminal to acquire something which they can acquire from legitimate businesspeople in a regulated market?"

I said that it happened all the time with guns. Folks who intend to use guns for crimes, folks whose past prohibits them from buying firearms, folks who want to bypass the waiting period, folks who want an illegal modification to their gun will all go to non legitimate folks to obtain such.

The same would presumably be true with drugs. Perhaps a dealer is offering it cheaper. Perhaps the dealer has added some 'kick' to the drug.

Regulate it all you want, illegalities and dealers and use by non-adults will continue to exist under the radar.

On a non related to this thread note, we are still awaiting the publishing of the fetus growth timeline you said you'd post in the "Roe" thread.

 

So even though you made the following posts, you have no intention of posting the "very different" timeline?

Here is your quote from 06/26:

"My OB/GYN gave me a very different timeline. It is good to see that the anti abortion crowd will simply make up "evidence" to use."

From later that same morning:

"I'll get the one my wife and OB showed me when I get home."

"Again, I saw a VERY different timeline, one not influenced by abortion politics."


You claim that the timeline posted was "made up evidence" by the anti-abortion crowd, yet you have no facts to back up your claim (even though you "claim" to have a VERY different timeline).

It's not productive because WE are not willing to see another point of view? Who says those posting haven't been on both sides of the debate as you claim? Why are we the unreasonable ones and not you?

You can simply post your timeline which contradicts the one posted by the "anti-abortion" crowd and leave it at that.

 

I stated that was a possibility as well
AND
that the drugs would be one more worry

QUESTION: If MARY J and other drugs become legal
Is random drug testing still legal?
Is it legal to fire someone for using LEGAL drugs then?

If I have my business and don't want any dope heads
would be view and open to law suit in the same context
that If I said i did not want to hire any smokers?

I guess then to an extent we would have to prosecute drug discriminators

Rocket River

 

You presented ONE fact (a poll that was similar to a poll bobrek posted in the thread earlier) and claimed you had more evidence (the timeline). We just want to see this evidence, or concede the point.

BTW, these kinds of comments will follow you in lots of threads. If you claim to have evidence, you can't insult the people that actually post evidence and facts and then expect to get away with it.

 

Rocket River,
If they legalize mar1juana they aren't going to scrap sobriety rules on the job...they just aren't.
And yes, it is legal to fire someone for using legal drugs on the job...ever heard of people getting fired for being drunk at work? Its happens.
And why wouldn't random drug tests be legal? I don't get your argument at all. Its seems like you think if they legalize it then everyone is going to turn into an addict.
Do you feel this way about people that drink? Since they've re-legalized alcohol do you think there a huge drunk workforce out there?
What I really don't get is the 'one more thing' statement. How is it one more thing when its available to anyone at pretty much anytime already...if they wanted to do it, they would be.

 

Yesh is doesh... (*urp*)

 

Andy,

You are starting to sound like a broken record, have a take about something else for crying out loud.

DD

 

The poll I presented showed that 48% consider themselves pro-choice while 42% considered themselves pro-life. With the margin of error this is essentially a wash. We would be glad to pursue this in the Roe thread, but you claim to not be posting there. We are simply asking for the timeline that you claim to have which shows "VERY different" fetus development times as the one you claim was "made up evidence" by the anti-abortion crowd.

If you are going to call something "made-up" based on a timeline that you have, you should present the timeline. If the one you have is similar, simply admit you were wrong and we can all move on. It happens. Occasionally people make mistakes.