Obama just granted 231 pardons and commutations – the most ever in a single day

[Tijuana]

Then there's no reason to have drugs be illegal. It was never about public safety, it was about people choosing to ban something they didn't like. That's pretty much how it goes with humans and government.

Agreed. This is why we need at least some Libertarian views in Washington, be they on the left or the right, or both.

[Doctor Funkenstein]

You do realize that the power of the pardon is one of the POTUS's constitutionally granted powers right? There's not a thing legally questionable about the POTUS giving out pardons.

Or that every. single. president. does it at the end of their run.

And if you think Obama is going to hold on to the record, well, LOL. Clearly you haven't been paying attention to the guy that's been elected to replace him.

[Machismo]

Hell the DEA only attacked marijuana after prohibition was ended as a way to continue operations on a large scale and receive government funding. The war on drugs just kicked them into overdrive. If marijuana became legal, the DEA's funding could be slashed so far that it could be easily merged into other crime bureaus like the FBI as a drug task force without being its own separate entity.

It's always about funding. The government sells fear and paranoia in order to justify the amount of money they want to keep spending.

[Tijuana]

Hell the government only attacked marijuana after prohibition was ended as a way to continue operations on a large scale and receive government funding for their anti bootleg task forces. The war on drugs just kicked them into overdrive. If marijuana became legal, the DEA's funding could be slashed so far that it could be easily merged into other crime bureaus like the FBI as a drug task force without being its own separate entity.

Uh, the DEA was formed in 1973. Prohibition had been over for like 50 years. Just sayin....

[Machismo]

Agreed. This is why we need at least some Libertarian views in Washington, be they on the left or the right, or both.

Say what you want about libertarianism, but at least it's logically consistent.

[Bullettime]

Uh, the DEA was formed in 1973. Prohibition had been over for like 50 years. Just sayin....

Corrected my statement. The DEA was a merger of many other entities that were created during the prohibition era and only continued operations by attacking things like marijuana.

[Jun]

It's easy to judge and be vindictive from the outside, but there are plenty of people serving some ridiculous sentences in prison that should not be.

The only difference between them and some of you, I'm sure, is that they got caught.

So let's quit pretending that it's a terrible thing to commute sentences.

[Tijuana]

It's easy to judge and be vindictive from the outside, but there are plenty of people serving some ridiculous sentences in prison that should not be.

The only difference between them and some of you, I'm sure, is that they got caught.

So let's quit pretending that it's a terrible thing to commute sentences.

Agreed. All the sentences are too long, because politicians like to run on being "tough on crime". We have seen sentence inflation for decades now, and it's unfair.

[PassingBy]

If laws are morally unjustifiable ( and IMO laws preventing legal adults from consuming whatever they wish are), then civil disobedience is called for.

You do understand that consuming anything won't get you a life sentence?

Managing a whole organization that sells dangerous substances, to addicted people, without taking any responsibility for the quality of those substances, any of the overdoses, permanent health damage etc, while also illegally laundering money that you get that way, and probably having a bunch of goons that deal with the competition and/or people that cross you does.

There is quite an easy way to not go to jail for drugs - don't sell them.

And this is coming from a drug addict, sober for quite some time already, but still an addict.

[Annoying]

Without knowing the actual details of each case, I'll take Obama at his word (they were serving out dated sentences), and say this is a good thing. Also, wtf is with that photo. Come on man...

Machismo posted the actual details (as far as charges and such):

Here's the list.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...ns-and-pardons

But yeah, almost all of them are drug charges. A handful of smaller things like bank fraud and such.

As for something I've seen pulled up a few times: Firearms charges. There's a few that I agree are solid and should be there. "Possession of a firearm after former conviction of a felony", for one certainly belongs there.

But some amount of those are these charges: "possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime".

Those don't require you to have the firearm on you, by the way. Merely owning a firearm and getting drug charges nets you this charge. The "prohibited persons" clause for controlled substances makes it a crime to own a gun if you use any illegal drug at all. Ever.

[Dug]

You do understand that consuming anything won't get you a life sentence?

Managing a whole organization that sells dangerous substances, to addicted people, without taking any responsibility for the quality of those substances, any of the overdoses, permanent health damage etc, while also illegally laundering money that you get that way, and probably having a bunch of goons that deal with the competition and/or people that cross you does.

There is quite an easy way to not go to jail for drugs - don't sell them.

And this is coming from a drug addict, sober for quite some time already, but still an addict.

A lot of people get charged with possession. How many of those do you think are kingpins in the illegal drug trade market? You won't get arrested for being blitz at the movie theater but you damn sure will be arrested if they find any on your person.

[Sky High]

I could have sworn OP was a weed smoking "libertarian". what's the problem with freeing people for nonviolent drug offences? if I was the partisan type I'd assume it's becasue it's a democrat doing it.

[BannedForViews]

And then you wonder why prison turns some tame people into hardened and violent criminals.

- - - Updated - - -



Couldn't that same logic be applied to drugs? High + driving = crime. High + anything that negatively impacts others = crime.

Well, they already are crimes but possession and just being under the influence while not impacting others shouldn't be a crime.

I am not trying to argue here whether drugs should or should not be legal. I am saying the intent of the law is that the person doing drugs is engaging in unnecessary risk taking behavior, and as such, people who are not taking that risk should have some sort of protection against said risk taker. It's why speeding or other such things are considered illegal. It isn't that you can't drive a car at 85mph, it's that you are potentially risking others lives whilst doing so, and it is easier and safer (so many think) to have lower speed limits more people feel comfortable with than higher ones where there is a great chance of an accident.

possession is a crime because there are only two things you can do with drugs. Take them or sell them. Selling is well known to be the more serious of the two. Running a cocaine ring is not anywhere near like taking a bump in a night club bathroom.

- - - Updated - - -

Please elaborate on this one.

From all i have seen, the drug ban and the resulting black market and lack of regulation of the quality of the drug have caused more serious negative consequences for those both associated with it and those without than any consequences of having it legalized.

It isn't protecting peoples rights, no one has the right not to be offended by others. And they already have laws in place to deal with that on alcohol and such as that is even more offensive and deadly to many than some illegal drugs are. Just mandate they can't be high in public, problem solved.

Most of this is answered in my above comment. The intent is not to protect people from offense but from actual injury. It is believed that drug abusers will harm others physically or emotionally. They will steal to get their fix. This is true, the extent is in question, but it is true.

Whether or not the result is better with having drugs be illegal or not is hard to say. Would we be better off if our military wiped all the cartels off the planet? Probably. You could argue they aren't fighting the war properly ( a common complaint about our government). Regardless, i wasn't saying what is, but what the intent is.

[schwank05]

And here we see yet another conservative slamming Obama for yet another thing presidents before him have done. Its a tradition for outgoing presidents to grant pardons and one of their constitutional powers.

Next thread, you'll be bitching about Obama's vacation time . . .

I will why should he get vacation, when I cant afford to take vacation, because he decided I needed to pay all the worthless peoples insurance bills and now I have a shit insurance plan that I have to pay $1200.00 a month for.

[PassingBy]

A lot of people get charged with possession. How many of those do you think are kingpins in the illegal drug trade market? You won't get arrested for being blitz at the movie theater but you damn sure will be arrested if they find any on your person.

Will you get a life sentence for a few pills, or a joint?
I am no expert on US criminal law, but I really doubt so.

I suppose you have to be caught with a quantity that implies that you were posessing with an intent to sell, or be caught selling to get a significant sentence.

[BannedForViews]

I could have sworn OP was a weed smoking "libertarian". what's the problem with freeing people for nonviolent drug offences? if I was the partisan type I'd assume it's becasue it's a democrat doing it.

On what planet is running a cocaine ring a non violent drug offense. Snorting a line maybe, selling lots of it? No.

[Dug]

Will you get a life sentence for a few pills, or a joint?
I am no expert on US criminal law, but I really doubt so.

I suppose you have to be caught with a quantity that implies that you were possessing with an intent to sell, or be caught selling to get a significant sentence.

No and your first time offenders probably won't get much but a slap on the wrist and a fine but if you keep getting caught per the "3 strike system" you can face serious jail time for a dime. The problem is when the sentencing is carried out it's usually crazy disproportional to the actual crime that took place. When rapists can sometimes get less time than someone in possession then something is wrong with the system.

[Mad_Murdock]

If there was a law that forced you to kill two babies per year, would you respect it? What about an anti-good samaritan law that prevented you from helping someone in need of help? Or a law that made homosexuality or anal sex a criminal offense? At what point is a law unethical enough that you think it's fine to disobey it? Drug laws are pretty damn unethical and are not something the government should have the right to police in any way, shape or form. So, yes, it's completely okay to ignore them, as I do on a practically daily basis.

There is a pretty big jump between killing babies and don't sell crack. So you just pick and choose which laws you want to obey based on your feelings about them? Speed limits are a human rights violation that's right I do 100mph whereever I go!

If the people don't like such laws, they get changed. If you find a law that terrible and unethical, why don't you gather support to have it changed, why choose to break it because "you" disagree with it. Prohibition didn't last, but drug laws have. Maybe drug laws have some merit, other than being some repressive law to hold an honest man down.

On what planet is running a cocaine ring a non violent drug offense. Snorting a line maybe, selling lots of it? No.

I don't know that all "drug rings" have to be violent. I don't think they are all like the ones on TV. Lady has a mom and pop shop of coke, that they sell to friends and family (not literally friends and family) and because it's low end, they have little to no need for guns and violence. Moonshiners didn't need to be violent back in the day to move their product.

Plus, it may just boil down to they couldn't prove any violence. They could only be charged with selling drugs.

[unfilteredJW]

There is a pretty big jump between killing babies and don't sell crack. So you just pick and choose which laws you want to obey based on your feelings about them? Speed limits are a human rights violation that's right I do 100mph whereever I go!

And you might kill someone driving that fast.

I might kill a taco when I smoke.

[Sky High]

On what planet is running a cocaine ring a non violent drug offense. Snorting a line maybe, selling lots of it? No.

if youre in south america I'd find that to be more or less true. when youre state side I'd assume they would add violent charges if they managed to pin that to them. you can argue they are accessories to violent acts which I won't deny.