Eric Holder Continues to Infuriate The "Law And Order" Authoritarians?

[BvBPL]

I don't think that's the case at all. Dick Wolf's seminal police procedural / courtroom drama dealt head-on with drug use and addiction in a very candid and smart manner, showing that addiction created serious problems in the lives of some of the reoccurring characters.

 

[CaptainF]

I wonder if they've ever made a police procedural / courtroom drama that's dealt head on with the effects of overzealous drug war policing? You know, stuff like being taken away from your family and friends, losing your house, job, and freedom for possessing a drug?

Or, maybe they could do a show interviewing the surviving family members of those killed in no-knock, plain clothes drug raids, especially those where they found only a pittance of drugs, or no drugs at all. Lots of potential interviews and tear-jerking human interest stories!

After all, it's not like those sorts of things have ever been more harmful than the drugs themselves...oh wait!

 

[CaptainF]

I don't accept that the sentences are unreasonable. If anything, strengthen them. That's the law, the people doing it know that, so they know if the break the law they are going to get 'x' sentence. It's totally on them that they're in the pokey for 10 years for some meth. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

(cue nonsensical bizarre punishment scenario so I can be grilled on whether it's okay or not...)

So, I'll ask you a question:

Which do you honestly think is more of a harm to someone?

1) Possessing 5 grams of cocaine

2) Going to prison for 5 years

I sure as hell know which option is more harmful. (HINT: it doesn't involve disco music, small mirrors and rolled up $100 bills)

 

[bhsup]

Then don't do 1) Is that really so hard to grasp?

 

[CaptainF]

Then don't do 1) Is that really so hard to grasp?

Well, since you've implicitly (though not explicitly ) answered that possessing cocaine is less harmful than going to prison, what right does the government have to use prison as a means to keep me from possessing cocaine? What sort of societal improvement is generated here? Can't you see how pointless that is?

"Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself; and where they are, they should be changed." -Jimmy Carter

 

[Kaitzilla]

As far as I know, cocaine is a little too awesome and can kill you if your heart can't take it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...k-cocaine-addicts-feel-perfectly-healthy.html

Cocaine causes such extensive damage to users’ hearts that it could trigger sudden death even when they feel perfectly healthy, experts warn.

They said that because of the hidden damage inflicted by the drug, many addicts may have already suffered a heart attack without realising it.

Researchers have found that 83 per cent of people using cocaine over long periods have suffered major structural damage to their hearts.

Hard to say how long before your heart goes. Rick James did it for decades before it gave out. Maybe he was occasional user. Hell of a drug hehe



Heroin is even worse. You can't ever feel normal again without a dose once you are hooked on it.

People have died merely trying to quit the drug the withdrawl is so bad. @_@


Marijuana is harmless though.

 

[Berzerker]

umm...the USA is the biggest drug dealer on the planet

waging a drug war here produces a stench of hypocrisy strong enough to repel starving vultures

 

[Camikaze]

I don't accept that the sentences are unreasonable. If anything, strengthen them. That's the law, the people doing it know that, so they know if the break the law they are going to get 'x' sentence. It's totally on them that they're in the pokey for 10 years for some meth. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

I think you're confusing two ideas here. Most people probably agree in general with the idea that if you commit a particular crime you should be willing to pay the penalty. That is, most people probably agree that abiding by laws is generally a good thing (with exceptions where civil disobedience is seriously required). That does not, however, mean that those laws should be immune from any sort of examination. Just because it is true that one of the many reasons you shouldn't do drugs is because you're putting yourself in serious danger of quite a lengthy sentence doesn't mean that any such sentence is just, fair, or supported by any sort of criminological theory. Saying that someone should obey the law, and then suggesting that an individual holds a degree of personal blame, if in spite of that law, the individual has engaged in an activity contrary to it and is thus facing a penalty, does not at all rule out consideration of whether the penalty they are facing is proportionate or useful to anyone at all or society as a whole.

So I think your statements of "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime" are fairly irrelevant to this thread. Okay, I generally accept that. But what does that say about the fairness of drug sentences, or more relevantly to this thread, mandatory minimums? I have never read any criminal theory that suggests mandatory minimums are a remotely good idea. But that doesn't mean I don't think it's wise for people to obey the law regardless.

To go beyond that a little, how does the idea work when we're talking about addictive substances? Doesn't it assume completely voluntary action?

 

[Berzerker]

judge the law before judging others

 

[peter grimes]

judge the law before judging others

Wisdom.

I'll obey a law even if I disagree with it, but only to a point. If my wife suffered from some ailment for which a non-FDA approved medicine is indicated in other countries, I'll break the law and import it. However, I won't import it for a stranger on ghetto street.

It all about degrees, man!

 

[IglooDame]

Then please, by all means speak up. Why do you think Holder is "there" besides clearly being eminently qualified for the job?

In May 2008, while still in private practice, Legal Times magazine named Eric Holder as one of the “Greatest Washington Lawyers of the Past 30 Years," describing Holder as one of the "Visionaries."[125] Also in that year, Holder was named by the National Law Journal as one of “the 50 Most Influential Minority Lawyers in America.”[126] The National Law Journal commended Holder's practice in the areas of civil litigation and white-collar defense, as well as his work as a national co-chair for Obama's campaign.[127]

The question is more, why is he STILL there? Between Fast and Furious and the journalist wiretapping, I'm surprised the Obama administration hasn't punted him yet.

But he's an AG selected by a Democratic presidential administration. Of course he's going to be a pro-law&order type, alongside the traditional Dem minimalist view of the Second Amendment. And while previously he has maintained that the Feds would continue prosecuting marijuana possession even where it was legalized at the state level, now he's proposing to reduce sentences for that possession. You'd think he'd understand that not arresting people in the first place would help more than reducing their sentences in the long run. But even a stopped clock is correct twice a day, eh?

 

[Formaldehyde]

The question is more, why is he STILL there? Between Fast and Furious and the journalist wiretapping, I'm surprised the Obama administration hasn't punted him yet.

Because the Obama administration isn't completely driven by the absurd rhetoric of clearly partisan Republicans?

But he's an AG selected by a Democratic presidential administration. Of course he's going to be a pro-law&order type, alongside the traditional Dem minimalist view of the Second Amendment. And while previously he has maintained that the Feds would continue prosecuting marijuana possession even where it was legalized at the state level, now he's proposing to reduce sentences for that possession. You'd think he'd understand that not arresting people in the first place would help more than reducing their sentences in the long run. But even a stopped clock is correct twice a day, eh?

So finally making a heroic stand in this matter, which should have occurred long ago, is a "stopped clock"? Administrations should never change their minds regarding policies based upon further reflection?

 

[peter grimes]

Wasn't this the administration that came into first term office claiming they wouldn't interfere with state - level legal dispensaries and such? Then abruptly and even aggressively did exactly what they said they wouldn't do?

And now when Holder makes some half step in the right direction we're supposed to forgive and forget the last 5 years?

No thanks.

 

[Camikaze]

Whatever this stand might be, I doubt heroism is much of a factor in it.

 

[Ajidica]

I don't accept that the sentences are unreasonable. If anything, strengthen them. That's the law, the people doing it know that, so they know if the break the law they are going to get 'x' sentence. It's totally on them that they're in the pokey for 10 years for some meth. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

(cue nonsensical bizarre punishment scenario so I can be grilled on whether it's okay or not...)

It may be the law, but does the law fit the action?
If congress and the president decided to pass a law banning the use of 64 oz cups (or whatever size you like), backed up by a 5 year prison sentence, would you support it because 'its the law'?

I'm willing to bet that you, along with the overwhelming majority of people, would find that law stupid and pointless. By drinking out of a 64oz cup, you aren't harming anyone (except possibly yourself due to the sheer volume of drink).
Quite a few people have a similar position toward drugs. Take pot for instance, it is less damaging to society than alcohol yet consumption of which is illegal and faces comparatively stiff legal penalties. As such, the law treating it as worse than alcohol seems silly. If we were to ban chemicals based on their damage-to-society factor than alcohol should be under as much scrutiny as pot.

(Nasty drugs, like heroin and meth, should be quite heavily banned although the focus should be on treating abusers rather than punishing them.)

 

[Formaldehyde]

Whatever this stand might be, I doubt heroism is much of a factor in it.

It would have been considered to be political suicide for a presidential candidate to advocate the decriminalization of marijuana only a few short years ago, and it still is to many. Opinions on legalization have only now grown to be a majority in the US, while only 38% have even admitted to ever trying it. Only 7% claim to now use it. What appears to be finally turning the tide is that 85% now think that it should be legal if prescribed by a physician. This is downright remarkable. It appears to show that people are finally becoming convinced that many cancer patients find it to be indispensable in relieving nausea so they can even feel like eating, despite this being known by many suffering from cancer for decades now.

So in that sense I do think it is indeed a heroic gesture to finally come out in such support of finally ending this utter nonsense, which has plagued this country and much of the rest of the world for nearly a century now.

 

[Camikaze]

I think it's a bit like saying that Obama's change of stance on gay marriage was heroic. Sure, it would've been unthinkable a few years back, and that's probably why he didn't say he supported it. When he finally did, it was because the weight of opinion had shifted enough for it to be politically advantageous, at least with a particular demographic, without being particularly politically damaging. I don't want to discuss that change of stance, I'm just using it to demonstrate that a little turn to the left on an issue can be just as much about politics as about politicians deciding to do the right thing despite massive political cost. If The West Wing was even close to accurate, remember that this is an administration decision, unlikely a unilateral Holder decision.

Perhaps I'm just not easily convinced that many politicians do things out of bravery.

 

[bhsup]

My 64oz mug purchase did not put money directly into the hands of coke dealers in Colombia who murder judges, cops, and anyone else who gets in their way. Buying coke does. Guaranteed. Straight pipeline to cop killers.

You snort coke? You willingly contributed to the murder of countless good guys.

 

[Ajidica]

My 64oz mug purchase did not put money directly into the hands of coke dealers in Colombia who murder judges, cops, and anyone else who gets in their way. Buying coke does. Guaranteed. Straight pipeline to cop killers.

You snort coke? You willingly contributed to the murder of countless good guys.

And where does the plastic in your mug come from? Poor third world countries under oppressive rule of sordid little dictators and unethical multinationals. Let us not pretend that most items we use were made without a whole host of rather nasty issues.

During prohibition the people involved in making and distributing alcohol on an industrial scale would not have made the list of "the 100 nicest guys in America", yet today with legal alcohol we don't have that issue. Setting up a legal framework for production and distribution ruins the illegal dealers and producers as they simply cannot compete price wise and incentive wise.
(Plus, I wouldn't get too haughty about South American drug lords given our rather unfortunate relation with them, drug-funded paramilitary groups, and rebels in South America.)

 

[Camikaze]

The idea of the crime tariff is highly relevant. Drug laws act as protection for those willing to take the risk they create, thus ensuring they make more money. Drug laws are essentially an indirect government handout to drug dealers.