• Howdy! Welcome to our community of more than 130.000 members devoted to web hosting. This is a great place to get special offers from web hosts and post your own requests or ads. To start posting sign up here. Cheers! /Peo, FreeWebSpace.net
managed wordpress hosting

Hefter Prision Sentences for Drug Offenders (US)

Why, yes! Certainly the best solution for dealing with drug-related crime (the most common of which is possession) is to lock offenders up in a place where it is REALLY EASY to get drugs!
 
The worst part is that with the prisons being overcrowded, authorities are required to release rapists, murderers, and child molesters in order to fit the pot smokers in.
 
Way to go USA! Lock up those killer pot heads! Everyone knows what distruction pot does to people, i mean it leads to such harder things like for instance, junk food! Let the rapists roam free! MURDER MURDER MURDER! but don't do drugs!
 
As a part of these new laws, the US was (is?) going to put a drug control office in Vancouver. i cant find the article about this.
 
I LIVE CANADA!!!
Pot nothing you can get busted for here unless you sell it.
I've smoked pot in front of a cop before with no probs.
 
the laws here are funny that way. If you have one plant, or one joint chances are its no big deal UNLESS they are out to get you.
 
wow, to me thats a step backwards, check out this article from rolling stone magazine.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/newsarticle.asp?nid=14313
giancarlo will immediatly dismiss but it gives a different view than what giancarlo thinks the ppl and the government think about the drug war. heres a few quotes
"In 2001, a record seventy-four percent of Americans say they believe the Drug War is failing. The majority say drug addiction should be approached as a disease, not a crime."

"Even President Bush's nominee to head the Drug Enforcement Administration, Republican congressman Asa Hutchinson, admits that the public is frustrated and that change is necessary. "We
need to show that we're not simply trying to put nonviolent users in jail," he tells Rolling Stone. The War on Drugs has become a war against the nation's citizens. The time for drug-law reform is now"

The problem with longer sentence for non violent drug crimes are they will require more prisons to be built more guards and in the end cost taxpayers more money to house these ppl. And the fact that while they may enter jail innocent pot smokers, they leave hardened with much more knowledge of tricks of conning and commiting crimes and often addicted to drugs like herion, cocaine and valium which is often more available in prison than on the outside.
 
In the united states we execute our first degree murders. This is a step forward to teach people to obey the laws, and make them afraid so they would. That is the Republican perspective. Both sides have points to them, I just think my perspective has more.
 
"The Republican perspective" is NOT rule by fear, Giancarlo. In fact, there are many Republican perspectives, and while a lot of them act like clones, some Republicans actually do have differing opinions about things like drugs, abortion, and even the death penalty. The only thing that most Republicans seem to jive on is that government should leave business alone so they can continue to make a buck while the poor get poorer.

Anyway, I don't think you can call rule by fear a Republican thing. That's more of a totalitarian police-state thing, and I don't think US Republicans have any desire to be total fascists. Most of them, at least most in the public eye, just want to stick their noses in my personal life, and they seem quite okay with the fact that it is perfectly legal, for example, for employers in 41 states to fire me because I'm queer. Gotta love that compassionate conservativism.

Not that I'm bitter.
 
Originally posted by robin
"The Republican perspective" is NOT rule by fear, Giancarlo. In fact, there are many Republican perspectives, and while a lot of them act like clones, some Republicans actually do have differing opinions about things like drugs, abortion, and even the death penalty. The only thing that most Republicans seem to jive on is that government should leave business alone so they can continue to make a buck while the poor get poorer.
Click to expand...

Your perspective of economics is wrong. With laissez faire, or hands off business, the national median income grows. The poor are either uneducated or do not have the skills to get a good job. How do I know? Shall I scan in twenty pages of a economics book meant for university students that I am taking this year in high school? A centerist source too.

The only thing radical liberals or democrats seem to want is decrease the cost of living for the Middle Class. Is that true when taxes broke our backs, or when under the Clinton regime the cost of living was so high and when all incomes dropped from lower to upper class? The facts are there. The Republicans are the ones that know how to control the economy well, the democrats are for social issues I must agree, the moderate ones though. The Democrats usually have little-no concept on how to grasp economics. At least we republicans, elect a businessman, Dubya who really cares for the people.

Anyway, I don't think you can call rule by fear a Republican thing. That's more of a totalitarian police-state thing, and I don't think US Republicans have any desire to be total fascists. Most of them, at least most in the public eye, just want to stick their noses in my personal life, and they seem quite okay with the fact that it is perfectly legal, for example, for employers in 41 states to fire me because I'm queer. Gotta love that compassionate conservativism.

Not that I'm bitter. [/B]
Click to expand...

Good for you. I am not fascist, because I support democratic freedoms, however we must have laws and laws must be obeyed. What you are calling for is a lawless state. Gotta love that ultra-radical liberalism.

The radical liberal will not get exercise from the presense of hardcore porn in the corner drugstore, but for goodness sakes business can't be free. The radical liberal will propose taking over companies and decreasing production, but he must fight for individual freedoms while our income goes down. The radical liberal critizes the current President in everything, yet they can not get a halfly decent leader in power. The Radical liberal hasn't had a decent leader. The Radical liberal will prevent information from reaching congress, about Russia selling nukes to Iran. The Radical Liberal will prevent knowledge from reaching congress about the 1994 Rwandan Genocide. The Radical liberal will dispose of information from the Rwandan Genocide. The Radical Liberal will propose to do nothing until after six months, when 500,000 people are murdered. The Radical liberal will allow the Taliban to hold Osama Bin Laden giving no punishment to the Taliban. The Radical Liberal will not allow the apprenhension of war crimes criminals to go free without trial.
 
Last edited:
Anybody heard of the "Radical Republican" (yes it does exist)? Herbert Hoover? Who sponsored the boom in the market economy 1929 even after farms and businesses were failing? To tell you the truth, it was inevitable, but because of Herbert Hoover and especailly because of John Jacob Raskof (sp?), the guy who created the idea of buying on margin, everything got screwy and the Great Depression came around.

I'm just playing with ya, GC :D
 
Originally posted by Hayama-kun
Anybody heard of the "Radical Republican" (yes it does exist)? Herbert Hoover? Who sponsored the boom in the market economy 1929 even after farms and businesses were failing? To tell you the truth, it was inevitable, but because of Herbert Hoover and especailly because of John Jacob Raskof (sp?), the guy who created the idea of buying on margin, everything got screwy and the Great Depression came around.

I'm just playing with ya, GC :D
Click to expand...

Private Measures to help the economy is better than the Communist "New Deal", which enacted program after program after program and not working with the framework of government, that didn't come till Eisenhower.

Ever heard of President Truman? 150% Deficits. 112,000 Men lost in Korea. 600 Million people lost to the communists. One of the highest costs of livings compared to the standard of living.
 
The poor are either uneducated or do not have the skills to get a good job. How do I know? Shall I scan in twenty pages of a economics book meant for university students that I am taking this year in high school? A centerist source too.

reality doesn't exist in textbooks, you should go live in the inner city with only a minimum wage job for income and see how far you can make it in 5 or even 10 years.
 
As any democrat would say, "increase the minimum wage". You increase the minimum wage, production will go down, and the work force will increase and therefore will increase unemployment. Most people in the US are really well off. I have an education, and that is all that counts and all what people should get.
 
Most people in the US are really well off.
Click to expand...

So you are ignoring the rest. I'd say most in this case would be around 67%.

I have an education, and that is all that counts and all what people should get.
Click to expand...

Good for you. You should see the dilapidated conditions of many schools in urban areas of the united states.
 
Originally posted by Giancarlo
The poor are either uneducated or do not have the skills to get a good job. How do I know? Shall I scan in twenty pages of a economics book meant for university students that I am taking this year in high school? A centerist source too.
Click to expand...

Wow. AP Economics. You're probably using the same textbook that my high school would use for regular economics.

Originally posted by jason

reality doesn't exist in textbooks, you should go live in the inner city with only a minimum wage job for income and see how far you can make it in 5 or even 10 years.
Click to expand...

Damn straight. Giancarlo, do you know how life is like when you have to struggle to keep food on the table, to keep a roof over your head? Apparently not. I'd say you'd last about 10 days in the city before applying for public housing, unless you want to work more than 100 hours a week.
 
I thought we all agreed that GC here doesn't know what he is talking about. If we haven't... let's just do that and ignore him what he starts spouting off at the mouth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top