Pardoning 'non-violent drug offenders', as in the Superbowl ad, just doesn't sit right. BTW I don't have all the facts. Yes, the act of selling drugs may be non-violent, but it isn't necessarily innocuous or innocent. IF it was an opiod, for example, isn't it likely that someone downstream overdosed and died from using the drugs that this non-violent offender sold? I'm sorry, but this smacks of blatant pandering on its face.
May need to disagree with DJT on this one
- Thread starter Dunraven
- Start date
I didn't see the ad, and I don't exactly know what sort of "non-violent drug offenders" DJT wants to pardon, but I will say that the "war on drugs" has been an incredible failure that has cost the tax payers a shitload of money, and have only made business more lucrative for the cartels.
We need to do something different then what is currently being done. And the amount of people that get locked up for marijuana violations is staggering. I don't smoke marijuana, have zero interest in it. But I think we go a bit overboard on prosecuting marijuana crimes.
We need to do something different then what is currently being done. And the amount of people that get locked up for marijuana violations is staggering. I don't smoke marijuana, have zero interest in it. But I think we go a bit overboard on prosecuting marijuana crimes.
Legalize it all but expect 100 percent personal responsibility with elimination of the tax payer funded support network.
Remove "drug addiction" from the disease category and make it exactky what it is - a personal choice.
You make the choice, you handle the consequences.
Remove "drug addiction" from the disease category and make it exactky what it is - a personal choice.
You make the choice, you handle the consequences.
Which Senators kid has been done for possession / intent to sell recently??
Someone gets a life sentence in prison for the possession of marijuana where in many states it is legal? Something definitely needs to be done about this.
The first step is to end welfare and food stamps. Yes, there's going to be a few special circumstances. Making people responsible again for their actions.
You want to get high and not have to work? Tough shit!!! You get caught in criminal activity to support your habit and the penalty is severe. No more liberal bullshit that it's their parents fault or they're sick.
I will be willing to have free higher education. Trade schools and junior college for the no welfare.
The first step is to end welfare and food stamps. Yes, there's going to be a few special circumstances. Making people responsible again for their actions.
You want to get high and not have to work? Tough shit!!! You get caught in criminal activity to support your habit and the penalty is severe. No more liberal bullshit that it's their parents fault or they're sick.
I will be willing to have free higher education. Trade schools and junior college for the no welfare.
These "non-violent" users are creating part of the demand that keeps the cartels smuggling drugs across our border, a lot of which is ending up on our school grounds. So much for the innocent user. Make it a misdemeanor with a $1000 fine when you get caught. Eliminate the demand, eliminate the source.
Kind of like how prohibition eliminated demand for alcohol?
Have you noticed how many more people are dieing from overdose since the government started the opioid crisis?
I will guess there's plenty of taxpayer money now in the hands of family and friends of congress
I will guess there's plenty of taxpayer money now in the hands of family and friends of congress
Politicians have turned war into a money making formula for enriching themselves and those around them. The war on drugs is no exception.
I loved the ad.
First, war-on-whatever campaigns are universally bad for our liberties. White, black, rich, poor - we've all lost basic rights that we should hold precious.
Second, this ad is a wonderful way to break through the media narrative that Trump only helps rich white guys. It also hits one tough-on-crime Democrat in particular - Joe Biden (who was a big supporter of the '94 crime bill). It doesn't take many swing voters in swing states to swing an election, and this ad was all about making an appeal to them.
It's one of the smartest moves that Trump has made in a long time.
First, war-on-whatever campaigns are universally bad for our liberties. White, black, rich, poor - we've all lost basic rights that we should hold precious.
Second, this ad is a wonderful way to break through the media narrative that Trump only helps rich white guys. It also hits one tough-on-crime Democrat in particular - Joe Biden (who was a big supporter of the '94 crime bill). It doesn't take many swing voters in swing states to swing an election, and this ad was all about making an appeal to them.
It's one of the smartest moves that Trump has made in a long time.
The only flaw in this theory is that "education" and in particular "educators" has lead us down this liberal road of no responsibility. That said, I understand what you are saying. Though, what about military service being required? Somehow personal responsibility needs to be "acquired by people - some young, some old.
I do believe that there are some circumstances where welfare is warranted - but primarily these fall under extreme medical, primary income giver permanently taken out of the picture (with several young children) . The "i fried my brain on drugs" or "I don't want to work (work harder)" doesn't fly with me. Do I want to go to work? Well, actually I enjoy where i work now...so yes..yes I do. But even places I hated, I still showed up and gave it my best effort. But I could be happily retired if I won Powerball (if we had it down here).
The person in the ad was not caught with drugs. They were passing infomation from a customer to a supplier. If I remember right, and I probably don't, she had a beeper and the customer called the beeper, and then she called the dealer. She was a layer in the process but had no drugs on her, in her house, or any history of drug activity. For that, she was given life in prison.
Was what she did wrong? Yes. Did she deserve to go to prison? Yes. Did she deserve a life sentence? That's the question and the situation being addressed by the bill he signed into law.
Was what she did wrong? Yes. Did she deserve to go to prison? Yes. Did she deserve a life sentence? That's the question and the situation being addressed by the bill he signed into law.
cost taxpayers approx $35,00-50,000 per year per inmate. How many "new" jails have sprung up in your area over the last 10 years? Seems every town in Nebraska has a new jail. If u realize how much they make per inmate, you would see why. It's another money making scam at the taxpayers expense. The new jail is making so much money in my town, they are considering an addition.
Take a look at the amount of people abusing and eventually ODing on prescription drugs. We don't hold drug companies accountable criminally, even in the cases where we know for a fact that that company pushed the product on a certain area, such as West Virginia for example, and took advantage of an entire class of people. The war on drugs, much as the war on terror, was fraught with issues from the start and half assed with ill defined goals and never meant to end in victory.
We could have funded several small countries with the tax payers money that has been spent on the War On Drugs since Reagan. Or we could have actually put the money back in the SS account.
You OD and flop on the street. Tough shit. Off to the cremation for you. Cops riding around with NARCAN and free rides to the hospital so you can go ahead and stick another needle in your arm?
You OD and flop on the street. Tough shit. Off to the cremation for you. Cops riding around with NARCAN and free rides to the hospital so you can go ahead and stick another needle in your arm?
I am not so sure the drug companies are at fault, unless the drug was bad. Dr’s were writing opioid scrips like it was cool and people were getting addicted. Then, instead of noticing their customer was addicted and needed treatment of addiction, they kept sending em back in for more opioids.
i had a dr kill my friends dad. They kept him on viccoden for years along with antidepressants. One day they cut him off, cold turkey. 3 days later he took his own life. He had ran out before and the withdrawals were severe and he had to be rushed to an er.
I'm not trying to say they are, that's like the people that say Remington is at fault for gun crimes. I'm referring specifically to the case down there where it was found that a drug company was giving out cash to doctors that specifically pushed their drugs onto people that they knew didn't need it and increased the opioid flow to that state by a huge margin. I don't remember the exact numbers, the company or the amounts they were paid but I do remember reading about it. There was a bunch of information on here too. It wasn't just the normal drug sales pitch, it was criminal what they did.
First, what ad, and who funded it if it actually exists.?
I was at a Superbowl Party and the voices were so loud the only thing I got out of the broadcast was what was on the screen; so I can't really answer my own question. I went home at halftime, and that addlepated Halftime 'Show" was still on, so I tuned it out and watched Netflix.
If it's true, I think Trump's being really shrewd.
The Dems are for legalizing Marijuana. While I think it's not a hanging offense, I also think the process a fraught with unintended consequences.
By releasing the Marijuana offenders into the mainstream, the concepts of public safety and related criminal activity are in brought into question.
Let the Dems live with what they preach.
Rub it in, real good.
Greg
I was at a Superbowl Party and the voices were so loud the only thing I got out of the broadcast was what was on the screen; so I can't really answer my own question. I went home at halftime, and that addlepated Halftime 'Show" was still on, so I tuned it out and watched Netflix.
If it's true, I think Trump's being really shrewd.
The Dems are for legalizing Marijuana. While I think it's not a hanging offense, I also think the process a fraught with unintended consequences.
By releasing the Marijuana offenders into the mainstream, the concepts of public safety and related criminal activity are in brought into question.
Let the Dems live with what they preach.
Rub it in, real good.
Greg
When do we start prosecuting all the pharmaceutical companies and doctors who knowingly overprescribed opioids for sheer profit?
Well at least the DEA tried to do something right for once and they got shut down by Big Money.
Dude, it's all just a dog and pony show. None of it means jack shit. There is no justice to be had. If you have enough money, you get power, which gets you impunity to make more money.
Ban narcan...... for the good of everyone else.
Ban tasers....... if the cops need to pull a trigger, make it mean something. Something definitive.
Ban tasers....... if the cops need to pull a trigger, make it mean something. Something definitive.
Large scale dealers / distributors can stay but let the posession and small stuff go. We as taxpayers have been screwed by the fear mongering over this for far to long. Moving to Utah has really made me see the devastation of individuals and families from legal (at least initially) opiates yet a fortune is made on them by the few in the producer / dealer network for them.
Really - just decriminalize the stuff that isn't so bad - cannabis, mushrooms, etc. which are far less harmful** than alcohol (the legal drug and it is a drug) and focus on the really hard, probelmatic issues such as meth and opiates. Some states are doing it and I think its a good move. I don't like "legalization" as the regulation / taxation creates a mess and I think it opens even more doors for the cartels.
** When I say less harmful I mean when enjoyed in moderation - anything overdone such as drinking or smoking pot daily is problematic for the individual.
Really - just decriminalize the stuff that isn't so bad - cannabis, mushrooms, etc. which are far less harmful** than alcohol (the legal drug and it is a drug) and focus on the really hard, probelmatic issues such as meth and opiates. Some states are doing it and I think its a good move. I don't like "legalization" as the regulation / taxation creates a mess and I think it opens even more doors for the cartels.
** When I say less harmful I mean when enjoyed in moderation - anything overdone such as drinking or smoking pot daily is problematic for the individual.
Or just you know, make it a buy your own Narcan either ahead of time, or when you need it.
How many violent criminals would you be willing to release to prevent a President Bernie? Just playing devils advocate here. I agree that drugs aren’t a victimless crime.
Should a seller be responsible for the use of his product by the buyers? Should we sue car manufacturers for accidents? Gun manufacturers? I do not like how drugs are affecting the US but the war was lost before we started. Banning alcohol did not work either. Banning murder does not eliminate murder. I do NOT have answers. Wish I did. But I do hate having my rights stripped away for the sake of safety.
Similar threads
