Jeff Sessions at it again

[trav 6834]

Jeff Sessions personally asked Congress to let him prosecute medical marijuana providers

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/13/jeff-sessions-personally-asked-congress-to-let-him-prosecute-medical-marijuana-providers/?utm_term=.e174414dc200

 

The two videos in the article are absolutely alarming. I'm curious how many of Americans (or how many of you) agree with his logic.

 

 

 

Do you think it's appropriate to jail a drug user? Do you believe this is the solution to reducing drug use?

[centran 4457]

This should be no surprise to anyone. I'm sure Trump see marijuana as just businesses and not competing with him or anyone he knows so he doesn't really give a shit. He has more important things to do. However, the people he is surrounded by do very much care and eventually will get him to overturn everything to make it completely illegal and have drug enforcement in every state regardless of the state laws. Now that there are so many states that have legal use or at least medical and there are the dispensaries are documented this is going to end very very badly for people trying to run a business... they already have a hard time since they can't use banks or anything federal but their business will be completely shut down and they will be wanted criminals. In the words of Trump, "Sad"

[Yunki 2197]

Jailing people for drug use is counter productive to rehabilitating people. If people are non-violent drug abuser/user, they need to go to rehab (provided a court finds it necessary). ALL drugs should be decriminalized and marijuana should be sold for both medical and recreational use. 

That is the beginning to the most effective way to lower drug ABUSE

[Rayne 4478]

Just now, Yunki said:

Jailing people for drug use is counter productive to rehabilitating people. If people are non-violent drug abuser/user, they need to go to rehab (provided a court finds it necessary). ALL drugs should be decriminalized and marijuana should be sold for both medical and recreational use. 

That is the beginning to the most effective way to lower drug ABUSE

 

Speaking for the drug abusers of the community, I can say with quite a lot of confidence that legalising drugs would be a terrible idea. Drug dealers would start adding even more shit to their products to lower their prices to counter their sudden spike in business. Not only would this create a worse quality of drug, it could potentially increase addiction by the sheer fact it would become cheaper over night.

 

Yes, legalising certain drugs would be of benefit, marijuana for example... but purely for the econmy, it would do very little where drug abuse is concerned.

 

EDIT: I do however disagree with locking drug users up, purely for use. As said above me, all this does is open so many possibilites for getting into something worse.

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

Just now, Rayne said:

 

Speaking for the drug abusers of the community, I can say with quite a lot of confidence that legalizing drugs would be a terrible idea. Drug dealers would start adding even more shit to their products to lower their prices to counter their sudden spike in business. Not only would this create a worse quality of drug, it could potentially increase addiction by the sheer fact it would become cheaper over night.

 

Yes, legalizing certain drugs would be of benefit, marijuana for example... but purely for the econmy, it would do very little where drug abuse is concerned.

 

EDIT: I do however disagree with locking drug users up, purely for use. As said above me, all this does is open so many possibilites for getting into something worse.

Doesn't portugal have all drugs legalized with the taxes paying for rehab systems? From what I've heard it works great not to mention it saves us a ton of money on prisons etc. I personally believe in decriminalizing but with heavy sentences for dealing or buying from an unlicensed dealer. Ez

 

As to jeff "the kkk was alright until i heard they smoke pot " sessions. We shouldnt be surprised anymore at the stupid shit he does or says.

[trav 6834]

Just now, Rayne said:

Speaking for the drug abusers of the community, I can say with quite a lot of confidence that legalizing drugs would be a terrible idea. Drug dealers would start adding even more shit to their products to lower their prices to counter their sudden spike in business. Not only would this create a worse quality of drug, it could potentially increase addiction by the sheer fact it would become cheaper over night.

 

Yes, legalizing certain drugs would be of benefit, marijuana for example... but purely for the econmy, it would do very little where drug abuse is concerned.

 

EDIT: I do however disagree with locking drug users up, purely for use. As said above me, all this does is open so many possibilites for getting into something worse.

 

What is stopping drug dealers from already doing that?

 

Legalization is also different from decriminalization. If you make it decriminalized, you will no longer have a criminal record or go to jail. There could be fines such as speeding tickets, etc. if you are carrying over a certain amount. A stipulation in being caught over that amount could mean being sent for rehab, and if you have over that amount then that could be grounds for intent to sell.

 

 

Just now, Ordinarygamer96 said:

Doesn't portugal have all drugs legalized with the taxes paying for rehab systems?

 

All drugs are decriminalized to a certain amount carried on the user.

 

 

[Rayne 4478]

Just now, Ordinarygamer96 said:

Doesn't portugal have all drugs legalized with the taxes paying for rehab systems? From what I've heard it works great not to mention it saves us a ton of money on prisons etc. I personally believe in decriminalizing but with heavy sentences for dealing or buying from an unlicensed dealer. Ez

 

Britain and America aren't Portugal. My words mean little when regarding America, because obviously I have no idea what the drug scene is like there. Here... legalising would not be fun.

Just now, Travesty said:

Legalization is also different from decriminalization. If you make it decriminalized, you will no longer have a criminal record or go to jail. There could be fines such as speeding tickets, etc. if you are carrying over a certain amount. A stipulation in being caught over that amount could mean being sent for rehab, and if you have over that amount then that could be grounds for intent to sell.

 

 

 

 

If that is what you're asking, yes I agree with that. I said that at the end of my original post.

 

EDIT: Seems I've misread the post I originally quoted, "decriminilising" and "legalising" are two totally different things... pretend I'm making my own point and not arguing against anybody elses xD

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

Just now, Rayne said:

 

Britain and America aren't Portugal. My words mean little when regarding America, because obviously I have no idea what the drug scene is like there. Here... legalizing would not be fun.

Perhaps. Prison however I dont consider the answer for addicts.  Maybe shorter mandatory sentences in rehab clinics. Lots of studies show that the drug war actually perpetuates the drug problem in america so decriminalization could potentially lead to less drug usage in the long term. At least in terms of dangerous drugs. Smoking has gone pretty far pretty far down thanks to information campaigns without a need to criminalize it. I think drugs could work the same way to a degree

[Rayne 4478]

Just now, Ordinarygamer96 said:

Perhaps. Prison however I dont consider the answer for addicts.  Maybe shorter mandatory sentences in rehab clinics. Lots of studies show that the drug war actually perpetuates the drug problem in america so decriminalization could potentially lead to less drug usage in the long term. At least in terms of dangerous drugs. Smoking has gone pretty far pretty far down thanks to information campaigns without a need to criminalize it. I think drugs could work the same way to a degree

Totally agree.

 

I whiffed in my original response, misread decriminilising for legalising and went off on a tangent.

[trav 6834]

Just now, Rayne said:

Britain and America aren't Portugal. My words mean little when regarding America, because obviously I have no idea what the drug scene is like there. Here... legalizing would not be fun.

 

Britain and America aren't Portugal but drug use is all very similar around the world, a good proportion of the population uses drugs for recreational use regardless of the laws governing them. For information, drug use in Portugal did not spike over time after decriminalization was put into effect.

 

I agree @Ordinarygamer96 rehabilitation, education and research is the best way to prevent drug abuse rather than prosecution.

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

Just now, Rayne said:

Totally agree.

 

I whiffed in my original response, misread decriminilising for legalising and went off on a tangent.

I mean you didn't really misread my original post. I'm generally for legalization of most or all drugs with the tax proceeds paying for rehabilitation and law enforcement campaigns against illegal dealers. Generally I think addiction is a problem because its treated as a crime and stigma. If it was looked at in the same way any other medical problem is then even with legalization addicts would seek help fast.  And as to those that simply are too far gone its better to at least offer them services that imprison them with people who have purposely hurt others

[centran 4457]

Just now, Yunki said:

Jailing people for drug use is counter productive to rehabilitating people. If people are non-violent drug abuser/user, they need to go to rehab 

 

counter productive to that person. Do you think so many politicians are against the use? Some that is true but also there are private company jails that earn a huge profits. Politicians directly see it helping themselves from "campaign contributions" from those companies. If someone had enough money to fight their lobbyist they could probably open rehab centers and push the legal system to send abusers to rehab... their rehab centers. $$$

 

Just now, Rayne said:

 

... legalising drugs would be a terrible idea. Drug dealers would start adding even more shit to their products to lower their prices to counter their sudden spike in business....

 

If it was legal and they taxed it then that would not happen. The "legal drugs" would be way too expensive and people would turn to illegal drug dealers. With the high tax costs they wouldn't have to worry about pricing. Just look what is happening with cigarettes in some cities.

[trav 6834]

Just now, centran said:

counter productive to that person. Do you think so many politicians are against the use? Some that is true but also there are private company jails that earn a huge profits. Politicians directly see it helping themselves from "campaign contributions" from those companies. If someone had enough money to fight their lobbyist they could probably open rehab centers and push the legal system to send abusers to rehab... their rehab centers. $$$

 

Don't forget pharmaceutical and alcohol companies who also have a stake.

 

 

Just now, centran said:

If it was legal and they taxed it then that would not happen. The "legal drugs" would be way too expensive and people would turn to illegal drug dealers. With the high tax costs they wouldn't have to worry about pricing. Just look what is happening with cigarettes in some cities.

 

Generally the public will buy from a legal dealer even if the price is higher. I believe consumers would rather pay for a product that the consumer knows what it contains and how its regulated, rather than buying something off the street that they aren't certain what they're actually purchasing. Looking at marijuana, illegal street dealers have had their asses handed to them with how a good product is readily available for the consumer through legalization.

 

 

[fatb0y 1337]

2 hours ago, Travesty said:

Jeff Sessions personally asked Congress to let him prosecute medical marijuana providers

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/13/jeff-sessions-personally-asked-congress-to-let-him-prosecute-medical-marijuana-providers/?utm_term=.e174414dc200

 

The two videos in the article are absolutely alarming. I'm curious how many of Americans (or how many of you) agree with his logic.

 

 

 

Do you think it's appropriate to jail a drug user? Do you believe this is the solution to reducing drug use?

 

I don't think Sessions thinks its appropriate to jail drug users. He wants to prosecute medical marijuana providers, who are in violation of federal statutes. Which the DOJ, under most circumstances, would have full discretion to prosecute. 

 

 

[trav 6834]

Just now, fatb0y said:

I don't think Sessions thinks its appropriate to jail drug users. He wants to prosecute medical marijuana providers, who are in violation of federal statutes. Which the DOJ, under most circumstances, would have full discretion to prosecute. 

 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/05/drug-war-policies

 

IN 2013, Eric Holder, then the attorney-general, issued a memo telling prosecutors to avoid charging certain defendants—such as non-violent offenders who were not members of drug gangs—with offences that would hand them long prison sentences. On May 11th, Jeff Sessions rescinded that policy, suggesting that prosecutors “pursue the most serious, readily provable offence.”

 

 

While I understand he's just a guy that's 'doin' his job' as he's supposed to and doesn't have any power in changing the law, his rhetoric behind marijuana use is a bit alarming. He is so far behind the times and having him advise prosecutors to give out sentences to marijuana users for having any amount on them is ridiculous. This does nothing to help solve his problem of drug use and violence but makes it worse. If he were to look at the facts and see how the war on drugs only perpetuates his problem, maybe he wouldn't be spewing this ass-backwards idea.

[fatb0y 1337]

Just now, Travesty said:

 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/05/drug-war-policies

 

IN 2013, Eric Holder, then the attorney-general, issued a memo telling prosecutors to avoid charging certain defendants—such as non-violent offenders who were not members of drug gangs—with offences that would hand them long prison sentences. On May 11th, Jeff Sessions rescinded that policy, suggesting that prosecutors “pursue the most serious, readily provable offence.”

 

 

While I understand he's just a guy that's 'doin' his job' as he's supposed to and doesn't have any power in changing the law, his rhetoric behind marijuana use is a bit alarming. He is so far behind the times and having him advise prosecutors to give out sentences to marijuana users for having any amount on them is ridiculous. This does nothing to help solve his problem of drug use and violence but makes it worse. If he were to look at the facts and see how the war on drugs only perpetuates his problem, maybe he wouldn't be spewing this ass-backwards idea.

 

I don't see the issue? His rhetoric behind marijuana use shouldn't matter. You say you get that he is a guy "doin his job", but do you really? Prosecutors aren't in charge of sentencing, they are only there to prosecute. Federal guidelines advise judges on sentencing, prosecutors have no real say in the matter. So, so what if Sessions has an ass-backwards idea regarding marijuana. 

 

Also, although I'm not certain, I believe that Holder's memo and its rescinding by Sessions, primarily concerned federal prosecutors. What kind of drug crimes do you think are prosecuted on a federal level? and not on the state level. 

[Sith 1050]

I don't find much sense in forced rehab. No one will change their drug habits unless they want to, mandatory rehab won't miraculously cure someones mindset.

[trav 6834]

2 hours ago, fatb0y said:

I don't see the issue? His rhetoric behind marijuana use shouldn't matter. You say you get that he is a guy "doin his job", but do you really? Prosecutors aren't in charge of sentencing, they are only there to prosecute. Federal guidelines advise judges on sentencing, prosecutors have no real say in the matter. So, so what if Sessions has an ass-backwards idea regarding marijuana. 

 

Also, although I'm not certain, I believe that Holder's memo and its rescinding by Sessions, primarily concerned federal prosecutors. What kind of drug crimes do you think are prosecuted on a federal level? and not on the state level. 

 

As the Attorney General, you have some political clout and if you're wise enough you will use the power you have to try and influence those around you. He is very much trying to convince others to believe what he believes -- not just his prosecutors.

 

Drug crimes with "non-violent offenders who were not members of drug gangs".

Just now, Sith said:

I don't find much sense in forced rehab. No one will change their drug habits unless they want to, mandatory rehab won't miraculously cure someones mindset.

 

That's a good point, I wonder the success rate in Portugal.

[fatb0y 1337]

Just now, Travesty said:

 

As the Attorney General, you have some political clout and if you're wise enough you will use the power you have to try and influence those around you. He is very much trying to convince others to believe what he believes -- not just his prosecutors.

 

Drug crimes with "non-violent offenders who were not members of drug gangs".

 

Here is Sessions' Memo. It states 

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/965896/download

Quote

There will be circumstances in which good judgment would lead a prosecutor to conclude that a strict application of the above charging policy is not warranted. In that case, prosecutors should carefully consider whether an exception may be justified. Consistent with longstanding Department of Justice policy, any decision to vary from the policy must be approved by a United States Attorney or Assistant Attorney General, or a supervisor designated by the United States Attorney or Assistant Attorney General, and the reasons must be documented in the file .

 

Which is in line with this memo from Holder. Which states 

https://www.fd.org/sites/default/files/criminal_defense_topics/essential_topics/sentencing_resources/clemency/holdermemo.pdf May 2010

 

Quote

All charging decisions are to be reviewed by a supervisory attorney. 

 

Here is the 2013 memo that was mentioned. This memo states 

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/oip/legacy/2014/07/23/ag-memo-department-policypon-charging-mandatory-minimum-sentences-recidivist-enhancements-in-certain-drugcases.pdf

Quote

Pursuant to my memorandum of May 19, 2010, prosecutors should continue to conduct "an individualized assessment of the extent to which particular charges fit the specific circumstances of the case, are consistent with the purpose of the Federal criminal code, and maximize the impact of Federal resources on crime." While this means that prosecutors "should ordinarily charge the most serious offense that is consistent with the nature of the defendant's conduct, and that is likely to result in a sustainable conviction," the charges always should reflect an individualized assessment and fairly represent the defendant's criminal conduct.

 

The main thing Sessions and Holder differ on isn't sentencing and charging. Not really, they actually differ on disclosure to the court. Holder's memo basically directs Federal prosecutors to withhold certain facts in certain cases from the court. Whereas Sessions' memo directs federal prosecutors to disclose all facts for sentencing. And in my opinion, full disclosure to the court leads to a healthier judicial system. 

[trav 6834]

Just now, fatb0y said:

The main thing Sessions and Holder differ on isn't sentencing and charging. Not really, they actually differ on disclosure to the court. Holder's memo basically directs Federal prosecutors to withhold certain facts in certain cases from the court. Whereas Sessions' memo directs federal prosecutors to disclose all facts for sentencing. And in my opinion, full disclosure to the court leads to a healthier judicial system. 

 

Thanks for the info but you could argue they do differ on sentencing and charging:

 

from the 2013 memo:

 

Quote

It is with full consideration of these factors that we now refine our charging policy regarding mandatory minimums for certain nonviolent, low-level drug offenders. We must ensure that our most severe mandatory minimum penalties are reserved for serious, high-level, or violent drug traffickers. In some cases, mandatory minimum and recidivist enhancement statutes have resulted in unduly harsh sentences and perceived or actual disparities that do not reflect our Principles of Federal Prosecution. Long sentences for low-level, non-violent drug offenses do not promote public safety, deterrence, and rehabilitation. Moreover, rising prison costs have resulted in reduced spending on criminal justice initiatives, including spending on law enforcement agents, prosecutors, and prevention and intervention programs. These reductions in public safety spending require us to make our public safety expenditures smarter and more productive.

 

[fatb0y 1337]

Just now, Travesty said:

 

Thanks for the info but you could argue they do differ on sentencing and charging:

 

from the 2013 memo:

 

 

 

Wouldn't this quote from Sessions substantively be the same as your quote from Holder?  

 

Quote

First, it is a core principle that prosecutors should charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense. This policy affirms our responsibility to enforce the law, is moral and just, and produces consistency. This policy fully utilizes the tools Congress has given us. By definition, the most serious offenses are those that carry the most substantial guidelines sentence, including mandatory minimum sentences.

 

There will be circumstances in which good judgment would lead a prosecutor to conclude that a strict application of the above charging policy is not warranted. In that case, prosecutors should carefully consider whether an exception may be justified. 

 

Both basically say, under certain circumstances, strict application of mandatory minimum laws are not warranted. Whereas Holder specifically states under which circumstances, Sessions does not.

[Booch 257]

I personally have to use medicinal marijuana for a muscle problem. I personally am too young to understand politics or what it is I just know personally medical marijuana helps a lot of people not just personally but I've heard it. Some people in fact need it to go through a normal day. I understand people use it in a wrong way but there's a lot of uses for it not just to get high. But ayy I'm too young to understand any of this.

[trav 6834]

2 hours ago, fatb0y said:

Both basically say, under certain circumstances, strict application of mandatory minimum laws are not warranted. Whereas Holder specifically states under which circumstances, Sessions does not.

 

Yeah I suppose so with those memos. It's a bit hard to know where Sessions actually stands with his wording though with just that memo alone. However we know his views on drugs as he's made them publicly.

 

Regardless, if he would actually read the up-to-date research on marijuana he might lose his hard-on for it and see that prosecuting these companies is not in the best interest of America. I'm quite sure there are bigger fish to fry than medical marijuana companies.

 

In the past, it was to be expected that the United States would be the leader in the world in terms of innovation and new policy. Usually the United States would execute new ideas well and the world would follow suit. Legalization done in the first states really propelled the views of Canadians to make legalization of marijuana a key issue in the federal election. And now, as you may now, we are planning to fully legalize it for recreational use nationally.

 

Sessions is making the United States look 3 steps behind everyone else. In my eyes (and I'm sure even around the world) ever since your recent election, the United States are becoming less and less respected as world leaders in that regard.

 

So when I made this thread, I was curious what the rest of you guys think about the issue of legalizing and decriminalizing drugs. I wondered just how many of you agree with Jeff Sessions. 

 

 

[fatb0y 1337]

Just now, Travesty said:

 

So when I made this thread, I was curious what the rest of you guys think about the issue of legalizing and decriminalizing drugs. I wondered just how many of you agree with Jeff Sessions. 

 

 

 

I don't agree with Sessions on the dangers of marijuana. I also believe that it is ridiculous to categorize marijuana as a schedule I drug. 

 

You can read about US drug schedules here

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act

[B-cock #1 641]

11 hours ago, Rayne said:

 

Speaking for the drug abusers of the community, I can say with quite a lot of confidence that legalising drugs would be a terrible idea. Drug dealers would start adding even more shit to their products to lower their prices to counter their sudden spike in business. Not only would this create a worse quality of drug, it could potentially increase addiction by the sheer fact it would become cheaper over night.

No, no, no, no, NO!

 

Why would you go to a drug dealer when there are perfectly good shops around? People don't go to dealers to buy booze or cigs, why would they go to the dealer for weed? Unless by "drug dealer" you mean a certified dispensary. Even if that was the case, people would want different qualities of weed, some don't give a shit and some people want good shit, like booze.

 

Also, marijuana can be mentally addictive to certain people, but there are no physical withdrawals that consider it addictive in that way. But the people w/ the mental addiction just have addictive personalities, they will typically do other things in unhealthy amounts.