Sheriff Joe's Round them up immigration policy

[minors]

I heard about this and I believe this is definitely cruel and unusual punishment. If he is such a good sheriff then why have these 2 serial killers been on the loose for more than a year now. He is clueless on these cases while more people are becoming victims of these people. Lets see him do something about these killers.

 

 

Read the last portion of the article if they don't like the punishment then don't come back it is really that simple. But some leftist's seem to think that we should coddle these thugs and treat them like they should be. Why do these thugs deserve better treatment than our soliders in Iraq? And I am sure Joe is working as hard as he can to kind these serial thugs so they can get there injections and join tookie and the rest of the murdering thugs.

[YASNY]

I which every county in the USA had a sheriff like this guy. Jail time is not supposed to be a pleasant experience.

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(minors @ Jul 30, 2006 -> 01:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Read the last portion of the article if they don't like the punishment then don't come back it is really that simple. But some leftist's seem to think that we should coddle these thugs and treat them like they should be. Why do these thugs deserve better treatment than our soliders in Iraq? And I am sure Joe is working as hard as he can to kind these serial thugs so they can get there injections and join tookie and the rest of the murdering thugs.

You mean " Maybe if all prisons were like this one there would be a lot less crime and/or repeat offenders?"

That's just a random thought. Maybe there would be, maybe there would be no change. Do you really think a the last thought a murderer has going through his/her head is "Wait, should I really kill this person. I mean, is the crime worth wearing the pink underwear?"

 

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jul 30, 2006 -> 09:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I which every county in the USA had a sheriff like this guy. Jail time is not supposed to be a pleasant experience.

One who violates constitutional rights and taxpayers' money on settling lawsuits while more important crimes, like the one BHAM has been keep track of, continue to go on. Just what was the jail like before Sheriff Joe? Did each inmate have his own TV, pot of coffee, hot tub, queen size bed or cable box? I read some of the stuff he does, and I'm not aware of what all jails and prisons are like, but that stuff seems pretty reasonable. Cook county banned smoking a couple years ago, so that's noting special.

 

Crap like brain washing inmates with Newt's lectures and making anti-democrat statements that you, minors and NUKE just love to get high on, along with charging inmates for dinner (what if they can't afford it? Is Joe going to let them die? Oh right, that homeless guy who was locked up for shoplifting deserves to starve to death because he's a "thug." ) is completely stupid and embarrasing to the public.

 

Hey Joe, find those serial killers yet?

[minors]

You mean " Maybe if all prisons were like this one there would be a lot less crime and/or repeat offenders?"

That's just a random thought. Maybe there would be, maybe there would be no change. Do you really think a the last thought a murderer has going through his/her head is "Wait, should I really kill this person. I mean, is the crime worth wearing the pink underwear?"

One who violates constitutional rights and taxpayers' money on settling lawsuits while more important crimes, like the one BHAM has been keep track of, continue to go on. Just what was the jail like before Sheriff Joe? Did each inmate have his own TV, pot of coffee, hot tub, queen size bed or cable box? I read some of the stuff he does, and I'm not aware of what all jails and prisons are like, but that stuff seems pretty reasonable. Cook county banned smoking a couple years ago, so that's noting special.

 

Crap like brain washing inmates with Newt's lectures and making anti-democrat statements that you, minors and NUKE just love to get high on, along with charging inmates for dinner (what if they can't afford it? Is Joe going to let them die? Oh right, that homeless guy who was locked up for shoplifting deserves to starve to death because he's a "thug." ) is completely stupid and embarrasing to the public.

 

Hey Joe, find those serial killers yet?

 

 

And you know for a minuet I actually thought you were going to write a good post but you just couldn't resist the personal insults. Do you really think people who have been through his jails and in the 130 conditions wouldn't think twice about committing a crime. The fact is he makes being in prison tough which is what jail is suppost to be and liberals seem to think we need to coddle them because it really isn't the criminals fault it must be the victims fault. And do you really think he starves people? come on that is one of the most stupid arguments I have heard even from you. And making these thugs work in chain gangs cuts a lot of costs for the public but I guess using your logic that is embarrasing to the public and he has been reelected to at least 4 times so he must be really stupid and is embarrasing the public

[LowerCaseRepublican]

And you know for a minuet I actually thought you were going to write a good post but you just couldn't resist the personal insults. Do you really think people who have been through his jails and in the 130 conditions wouldn't think twice about committing a crime. The fact is he makes being in prison tough which is what jail is suppost to be and liberals seem to think we need to coddle them because it really isn't the criminals fault it must be the victims fault. And do you really think he starves people? come on that is one of the most stupid arguments I have heard even from you. And making these thugs work in chain gangs cuts a lot of costs for the public but I guess using your logic that is embarrasing to the public and he has been reelected to at least 4 times so he must be really stupid and is embarrasing the public

There were a few other administrations with stringent law and order policies making prisons harsh. I saw it on the newsreels during the 1940s/1950s. Unfortunately, I couldn't understand it because the narration was in Russian.

 

The public (people in general) have endorsed numerous asinine things in the past -- so public support is not necessarily a justification that Arpaio's cause is morally correct. To quote the late, great Frank Zappa " The number of people who thought Hitler was right did not make him right."

 

While it is the dream of very "tough on crime" fan, the simple fact remains that not every person in jail is a thug. I'll simply point to the thousands of non-violent drug war "criminals" in jail for simple posession due to mandatory minimum sentencing laws.

 

Judge James P. Gray wrote a fantastic book called "Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It" discussing the massive problem of jail overcrowding due to mandatory minimum sentences and over-criminalization of simple posession.

 

Of course, all research and successful drug policy shows that treatment should be increased and law enforcement decreased while abolishing mandatory minimun sentences. Yet, the true thugs like Arpaio get away with such juvenile, neo-fascist and asinine humiliating tactics.

 

Humiliation is not going to stop recitivism. Rehabilitation efforts can help to stop recitivism. I lost what little respect Arpaio had when I saw him on Penn and Teller's show "bullspiff". During their discussion on the War on Drugs, he had a major league hard-on for wanting to violate the personal freedoms and choices of any person if he didn't like what they were doing. His authority complex is his hammer to which every issue becomes a nail -- at the detriment of sanity, logic, reason, personal freedom, fundamental human dignity and the values that make America great.

 

From Doug Stanhope's 2008 Presidential platform (and who I'm supporting for Prez):

My first official act as President will be to pardon all non-violent drug offenders. And a whole lot more people as well.

 

The money we spend keeping these people incarcerated, while enormous and without benefit, is still secondary.

 

What is more important is the fact that you own your body. Should you want to drive down the road without a seatbelt, ride a motorcycle without a helmet or cram your nose full of coke until your heart explodes, that is your own business.

 

Should you inflict harm to others because of your drug use, you will be punished for the crime commited. The majority of people who use or have used drugs have come to no harm nor hurt others. They should not suffer for the mistakes of the minority.

 

You own your body. Anyone who tells you otherwise and tries to control what you do with that body by force is a criminal.

[mr_genius]

There were a few other administrations with stringent law and order policies making prisons harsh. I saw it on the newsreels during the 1940s/1950s. Unfortunately, I couldn't understand it because the narration was in Russian.

 

 

ah yes, the communist paradise left wingers love to dream about.

 

i totally agree with you on prohibition. the 'war on drugs' is ridiculous, it causes many more problems than it solves (it's also insanely expensive).

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

There were a few other administrations with stringent law and order policies making prisons harsh. I saw it on the newsreels during the 1940s/1950s. Unfortunately, I couldn't understand it because the narration was in Russian.

 

The public (people in general) have endorsed numerous asinine things in the past -- so public support is not necessarily a justification that Arpaio's cause is morally correct. To quote the late, great Frank Zappa " The number of people who thought Hitler was right did not make him right."

 

While it is the dream of very "tough on crime" fan, the simple fact remains that not every person in jail is a thug. I'll simply point to the thousands of non-violent drug war "criminals" in jail for simple posession due to mandatory minimum sentencing laws.

 

Judge James P. Gray wrote a fantastic book called "Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It" discussing the massive problem of jail overcrowding due to mandatory minimum sentences and over-criminalization of simple posession.

 

Of course, all research and successful drug policy shows that treatment should be increased and law enforcement decreased while abolishing mandatory minimun sentences. Yet, the true thugs like Arpaio get away with such juvenile, neo-fascist and asinine humiliating tactics.

 

Humiliation is not going to stop recitivism. Rehabilitation efforts can help to stop recitivism. I lost what little respect Arpaio had when I saw him on Penn and Teller's show "bullspiff". During their discussion on the War on Drugs, he had a major league hard-on for wanting to violate the personal freedoms and choices of any person if he didn't like what they were doing. His authority complex is his hammer to which every issue becomes a nail -- at the detriment of sanity, logic, reason, personal freedom, fundamental human dignity and the values that make America great.

 

From Doug Stanhope's 2008 Presidential platform (and who I'm supporting for Prez):

 

 

You say that just because Arpaio is popular doesn't make him morally right. Well, in the leftist world everything is relative, especially whats morally right, and its a tasty morsel of irony that I get to apply it here to you. Prison should be austere, it should be hard, it should inflict punishment on someone not coddle them under the false pretense of rehabilitation. Measures like making them live outside, eat bologna sandwiches and watch the weather channel accomplish all of that and cut down on costs as well. His methods should serve as a model for all sheriffs to follow in how prisoners are treated.

 

I also had a good chuckle from your last paragraph where you try to equate use of illegal drugs with "personal freedoms". Those are the words of an anarchist and its hardly surprising to hear them coming from you. Just because someone is engaged in illegal activity in the privacy of their own home does not make it any less illegal.

[mr_genius]

Just because someone is engaged in illegal activity in the privacy of their own home does not make it any less illegal.

 

 

true, but it doesn't make the law right.

 

if the government decided to make booze illegal again i would break that law in a second

 

[LowerCaseRepublican]

You say that just because Arpaio is popular doesn't make him morally right. Well, in the leftist world everything is relative, especially whats morally right, and its a tasty morsel of irony that I get to apply it here to you. Prison should be austere, it should be hard, it should inflict punishment on someone not coddle them under the false pretense of rehabilitation. Measures like making them live outside, eat bologna sandwiches and watch the weather channel accomplish all of that and cut down on costs as well. His methods should serve as a model for all sheriffs to follow in how prisoners are treated.

 

I also had a good chuckle from your last paragraph where you try to equate use of illegal drugs with "personal freedoms". Those are the words of an anarchist and its hardly surprising to hear them coming from you. Just because someone is engaged in illegal activity in the privacy of their own home does not make it any less illegal.

Actually Arpaio blows through tons of taxpayer money (lawsuits, having to settle for millions multiple times out of court etc.) so his idea that he is cutting costs is pretty laughable.

 

Not to mention also but the costs (financial, manpower, et al.) are monumental to pay to go after some guy with a bloody nose and some south of the border limpness because he chose to do some blow while watching SNL in the privacy of his own home.

 

Wouldn't police resources be better spent actually stopping real crime rather than John Q. Public lighting up a doob on his back porch? Why should it matter to anybody else if a person decides to use a drug and use it in a responsible fashion without harming anyone else?

 

I'll again forward you the idea of reading "Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed" by Judge James Gray (a conservative former Republican who joined the Libertarian party)

 

And taken from the noted socialist, commie loving liberal William F. Buckley, Jr. "Marijuana never kicks down your door in the middle of the night. Marijuana never locks up sick and dying people, does not suppress medical research, does not peek in bedroom windows. Even if one takes every reefer madness allegation of the prohibitionists at face value, marijuana prohibition has done far more harm to far more people than marijuana ever could."

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Actually Arpaio blows through tons of taxpayer money (lawsuits, having to settle for millions multiple times out of court etc.) so his idea that he is cutting costs is pretty laughable.

 

Not to mention also but the costs (financial, manpower, et al.) are monumental to pay to go after some guy with a bloody nose and some south of the border limpness because he chose to do some blow while watching SNL in the privacy of his own home.

 

Wouldn't police resources be better spent actually stopping real crime rather than John Q. Public lighting up a doob on his back porch? Why should it matter to anybody else if a person decides to use a drug and use it in a responsible fashion without harming anyone else?

 

I'll again forward you the idea of reading "Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed" by Judge James Gray (a conservative former Republican who joined the Libertarian party)

 

And taken from the noted socialist, commie loving liberal William F. Buckley, Jr. "Marijuana never kicks down your door in the middle of the night. Marijuana never locks up sick and dying people, does not suppress medical research, does not peek in bedroom windows. Even if one takes every reefer madness allegation of the prohibitionists at face value, marijuana prohibition has done far more harm to far more people than marijuana ever could."

 

 

It's not Arpaio who is driving up costs in Maricopa county but leftists like you who disagree with his methods and file frivolus lawsuit after frivolus lawsuit to try to effect change.

 

I want to pay special attention now to this statement of yours.

 

 

Wouldn't police resources be better spent actually stopping real crime rather than John Q. Public lighting up a doob on his back porch?

 

 

Who are you to decide what "real crime" is and what it is not anyway? The people who decide that are the legislators when they criminalize and de-criminalize behavior as they see fit. You can wrangle about how it should be punished all you want ( I do somewhat agree that a first offense for posession of a small amount of ganja can be handled with a heavy fine ) but you are falling into the typical leftist trap of some laws being more important than others. Respect for the law is what holds our society together. When we as people try to make decisions about which laws are worth following and which aren't then none of them mean anything and anarchy results. If the public wanted Marijuana legalized it would have been done by now. You who favor legalization of narcotics are a tiny minority and always will be.

[samclemens]

Actually Arpaio blows through tons of taxpayer money (lawsuits, having to settle for millions multiple times out of court etc.) so his idea that he is cutting costs is pretty laughable.

 

Not to mention also but the costs (financial, manpower, et al.) are monumental to pay to go after some guy with a bloody nose and some south of the border limpness because he chose to do some blow while watching SNL in the privacy of his own home.

 

Wouldn't police resources be better spent actually stopping real crime rather than John Q. Public lighting up a doob on his back porch? Why should it matter to anybody else if a person decides to use a drug and use it in a responsible fashion without harming anyone else?

 

I'll again forward you the idea of reading "Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed" by Judge James Gray (a conservative former Republican who joined the Libertarian party)

 

And taken from the noted socialist, commie loving liberal William F. Buckley, Jr. "Marijuana never kicks down your door in the middle of the night. Marijuana never locks up sick and dying people, does not suppress medical research, does not peek in bedroom windows. Even if one takes every reefer madness allegation of the prohibitionists at face value, marijuana prohibition has done far more harm to far more people than marijuana ever could."

 

yes, lets legalize drugs, great idea. i've been reading all the posts in this thread and i have noticed that your criticisms of this sherrif have basically been whittled down to that he wastes taxpayer money. and that site you used was nothing but crap. i know a kid who worked at mcdonalds in high school and hated his manager. if that kid makes a web site about how much of a douche his manager is, then it would be "credible" by your standards, apparently. and the kiddie porn...come on man, what, did this guy rape your sister? that was crap too. whats with all these low blows? do you even live in that region of the country? (if you do then you are not completely baseless in those attacks)

 

and thats great that you have some opinion books about how drug laws have failed and our society should just give in and legalize drugs. its not a very complex issue. when you use or possess illegal drugs, you are breaking the law, and everyone in this country knows it. its the same reason that even after prohibition was repealed, all those bootleggers in prison had to still serve out their sentences. its a law; you break it, be prepared to do the time.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

It's not Arpaio who is driving up costs in Maricopa county but leftists like you who disagree with his methods and file frivolus lawsuit after frivolus lawsuit to try to effect change.

 

I want to pay special attention now to this statement of yours.

Who are you to decide what "real crime" is and what it is not anyway? The people who decide that are the legislators when they criminalize and de-criminalize behavior as they see fit. You can wrangle about how it should be punished all you want ( I do somewhat agree that a first offense for posession of a small amount of ganja can be handled with a heavy fine ) but you are falling into the typical leftist trap of some laws being more important than others. Respect for the law is what holds our society together. When we as people try to make decisions about which laws are worth following and which aren't then none of them mean anything and anarchy results. If the public wanted Marijuana legalized it would have been done by now. You who favor legalization of narcotics are a tiny minority and always will be.

It isn't frivilous. Why would they settle for nearly $9 million with Scott Norberg's family if they were innocent (and there's little proof that a trial would cost that much) In 1996, the state auditor found that Arpaio had misused more than $122,000 of taxpayers' money from the jail-enhancement fund. Arpaio used the money to pay for a private attorney in a constitutionalist lawsuit against the county and for videotapes of his own television appearances, among other things. Since 1996, more than 2,600 lawsuits have been filed against Arpaio, including more than 850 by inmates. Payouts have totaled in excess of $16 million, while more than $35 million in wrongful-termination suits are pending. The death of Scott Norberg, who was choked to death by detention officers, cost the county $1 million in private-attorney fees, plus $8.25 million in settlement costs. In June, an appeals court upheld the payment of $1.5 million to Timothy Griffin, who suffered a ruptured ulcer after being refused treatment by jail medical staff. Also, he's given himself numerous pay raises. In 1996, a Department of Justice investigation found that Maricopa County inmates regularly were subjected to excessive force and received negligent medical care. Arpaio bragged later that he had changed nothing in the jails after the federal probe. Inmates at the Madison Street Jail are often locked up for two or three months before they receive medical screenings. In doing so, the department has been violating a court order from a 1983 lawsuit, which requires that inmates receive a medical screening within 14 days of their arrival at the jail. Deputies and detention officers say that such lax medical screening puts them, as well as other inmates, in danger of contracting diseases, and provides even more fodder for lawsuits.

 

He relies on cheap, tawdry publicity stunts that make for effective TV news sound bites and talking heads blathering material rather than effective crime prevention.

 

As for "real crime" and the respect of laws, numerous times in history people have stood up in opposition of certain laws (the Boston Tea Party, the American Revolution and Jim Crow and the civil rights movement of the 1950s) that were legal. Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, then these people should have respected the laws on the books and not gone on marches, freedom rides, sit-ins, etc. I'm not saying you're racist or anything of the such -- I'm simply taking the "We must respect all laws as laws" argument to its extension and application.

 

Quick history of cannabis sativa criminalization:

 

1930s: Numerous Mexican immigrants are using the product. Xenophobic fears and feelings prompt anti-marijuana legislation in certain states with the very overt idea of attacking Mexicans

 

Hearst newspapers join Harry Anslinger and other major corporations (such as Kimberly Clark, DuPont, etc.) in criminalizing cannabis through Hearst's completely insane, fake news stories. Clark and DuPont didn't like that cannabis sativa plants can create numerous industrial products (oils, paper products, clothing et al.) with easy replenishment -- and it is one of the strongest fabrics on the planet. These companies had timber holdings/plastic interests that would lose money on the free market if they had to face cannabis and hemp on a free market.

 

1937: Cannabis is criminalized by the US government with such compelling arguments on the floor of Congress such as "it causes people to fall under the influence of listening to jazz" and that "a black man may look at a white woman twice" among other bold faced lies and overtly racist propaganda (i.e. Anslinger believing that marijuana made "darkies" [his word"] feel almost equal to white people)

 

During Nixon's administration, he commissioned a report on the drug war. When the government report said that marijuana prohibition was a low priority goal and not really worth the efforts, he refused to read it and let it sit on his desk.

 

Due to racist propaganda, overly lying and sensationalistic xenophobic newspapers and companies that wanted to short circuit a free market, we have cannabis being prohibited. It's a really glossed over part of our history. I'm certain that if people knew the true facts rather the "This is your brain...This is your brain on drugs" commercials being crammed down their throats, they'd be more in favor of making cannabis and other drugs legal. You and I both know that most Congressmen are owned by special interests and corporate cash rather than facts, logic, reason and their constituency.

 

Plus, the amount of people believing it should be legalized is growing from 15% in 1972 to 41% in 2003. So it isn't a small minority that will always stay that way. It's a growing movement.

 

Quick Edit: The statistics on decrim support are from USA Today.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

It isn't frivilous. Why would they settle for nearly $9 million with Scott Norberg's family if they were innocent (and there's little proof that a trial would cost that much) In 1996, the state auditor found that Arpaio had misused more than $122,000 of taxpayers' money from the jail-enhancement fund. Arpaio used the money to pay for a private attorney in a constitutionalist lawsuit against the county and for videotapes of his own television appearances, among other things. Since 1996, more than 2,600 lawsuits have been filed against Arpaio, including more than 850 by inmates. Payouts have totaled in excess of $16 million, while more than $35 million in wrongful-termination suits are pending. The death of Scott Norberg, who was choked to death by detention officers, cost the county $1 million in private-attorney fees, plus $8.25 million in settlement costs. In June, an appeals court upheld the payment of $1.5 million to Timothy Griffin, who suffered a ruptured ulcer after being refused treatment by jail medical staff. Also, he's given himself numerous pay raises. In 1996, a Department of Justice investigation found that Maricopa County inmates regularly were subjected to excessive force and received negligent medical care. Arpaio bragged later that he had changed nothing in the jails after the federal probe. Inmates at the Madison Street Jail are often locked up for two or three months before they receive medical screenings. In doing so, the department has been violating a court order from a 1983 lawsuit, which requires that inmates receive a medical screening within 14 days of their arrival at the jail. Deputies and detention officers say that such lax medical screening puts them, as well as other inmates, in danger of contracting diseases, and provides even more fodder for lawsuits.

 

He relies on cheap, tawdry publicity stunts that make for effective TV news sound bites and talking heads blathering material rather than effective crime prevention.

 

As for "real crime" and the respect of laws, numerous times in history people have stood up in opposition of certain laws (the Boston Tea Party, the American Revolution and Jim Crow and the civil rights movement of the 1950s) that were legal. Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, then these people should have respected the laws on the books and not gone on marches, freedom rides, sit-ins, etc. I'm not saying you're racist or anything of the such -- I'm simply taking the "We must respect all laws as laws" argument to its extension and application.

 

Quick history of cannabis sativa criminalization:

 

1930s: Numerous Mexican immigrants are using the product. Xenophobic fears and feelings prompt anti-marijuana legislation in certain states with the very overt idea of attacking Mexicans

 

Hearst newspapers join Harry Anslinger and other major corporations (such as Kimberly Clark, DuPont, etc.) in criminalizing cannabis through Hearst's completely insane, fake news stories. Clark and DuPont didn't like that cannabis sativa plants can create numerous industrial products (oils, paper products, clothing et al.) with easy replenishment -- and it is one of the strongest fabrics on the planet. These companies had timber holdings/plastic interests that would lose money on the free market if they had to face cannabis and hemp on a free market.

 

1937: Cannabis is criminalized by the US government with such compelling arguments on the floor of Congress such as "it causes people to fall under the influence of listening to jazz" and that "a black man may look at a white woman twice" among other bold faced lies and overtly racist propaganda (i.e. Anslinger believing that marijuana made "darkies" [his word"] feel almost equal to white people)

 

During Nixon's administration, he commissioned a report on the drug war. When the government report said that marijuana prohibition was a low priority goal and not really worth the efforts, he refused to read it and let it sit on his desk.

 

Due to racist propaganda, overly lying and sensationalistic xenophobic newspapers and companies that wanted to short circuit a free market, we have cannabis being prohibited. It's a really glossed over part of our history. I'm certain that if people knew the true facts rather the "This is your brain...This is your brain on drugs" commercials being crammed down their throats, they'd be more in favor of making cannabis and other drugs legal. You and I both know that most Congressmen are owned by special interests and corporate cash rather than facts, logic, reason and their constituency.

 

Plus, the amount of people believing it should be legalized is growing from 15% in 1972 to 41% in 2003. So it isn't a small minority that will always stay that way. It's a growing movement.

 

 

So tell me........what does his deputies killing a prisoner have to do with austere conditions in prison?

 

Point 2. People who have been most successful at effecting changes in the laws did it by working within the system. Explain to me how going on marches, freedom-rides etc etc is breaking the law when its constitutionally protected by the 1st amendment?

 

Seems to me that you are very bitter about your inability to get high legally. I find your reasoning, blaming racism, corporate interests etc.......etc....... almost as dubious as your assertion that 41% of Americans want to de-criminalize pot.

[NorthSideSox72]

Let's not confuse marijuana with narcotics. Saying mary jane and heroine have anything like the same effect on society is being blind to the facts. Marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco - and in fact, probably less so.

 

And I'll also say that keeping prisoners in 138 degree heat is probably a bit too far. But that and his clearly unconstitutional patrol practices aside, I do still like the way he runs his prisons.

 

Oh, and, thanks everyone for keeping it RELATIVELY civil. Let's keep it there. No baiting, please.

 

 

You who favor legalization of narcotics are a tiny minority and always will be.

Nuke, everything I have read on any actual statistics refutes this. Plenty of people would be willing to see marijuana decriminalized. It hasn't happened yet because its a divisive issue that will cost money in the short run (though save a TON in the long run), and which makes any lawmaker supporting it look weak on crime.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Let's not confuse marijuana with narcotics. Saying mary jane and heroine have anything like the same effect on society is being blind to the facts. Marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco - and in fact, probably less so.

 

And I'll also say that keeping prisoners in 138 degree heat is probably a bit too far. But that and his clearly unconstitutional patrol practices aside, I do still like the way he runs his prisons.

 

Oh, and, thanks everyone for keeping it RELATIVELY civil. Let's keep it there. No baiting, please.

Nuke, everything I have read on any actual statistics refutes this. Plenty of people would be willing to see marijuana decriminalized. It hasn't happened yet because its a divisive issue that will cost money in the short run (though save a TON in the long run), and which makes any lawmaker supporting it look weak on crime.

 

 

Ive seen polls where allowing medical marijuana garnered some fairly decent support but de-criminalizing all narcotics like LCR was talking about will never fly in this country.

[Texsox]

What we seem to want to do is become a third world country and give so much power to the government. I am amazed how people want to allow the government total access to their lives. They trust the legal system totally. (Thank God they got the OJ verdict right). Somehow it has become the more conservative people who demand more government intervention. More government powers. About opposite of the small government, less laws, less government interference, ideals of my father's brand of conservatism.

 

There is a balance in handling prisoners and it varies by the crime and the prisoner. A times, prisoners have had it too easy, now a pendulum is swinging too far the other side. In the grand scheme of things, no big deal. It will always come back to center.

 

[LowerCaseRepublican]

So tell me........what does his deputies killing a prisoner have to do with austere conditions in prison?

 

Point 2. People who have been most successful at effecting changes in the laws did it by working within the system. Explain to me how going on marches, freedom-rides etc etc is breaking the law when its constitutionally protected by the 1st amendment?

 

Seems to me that you are very bitter about your inability to get high legally. I find your reasoning, blaming racism, corporate interests etc.......etc....... almost as dubious as your assertion that 41% of Americans want to de-criminalize pot.

Point 1 -- I was pointing out many of the lawsuits have merit and that his conditions are so poor that it is causing more lawsuits (i.e. from poor/no treatment for those who need immediate medical assistance) Not only do many of them have merit, but they also are costing the county lots of money. Plus, he's been nailed for misappropriating funds, etc. as I discussed.

 

Point 2 -- Freedom rides and the marches were often illegal because they were not able to get the permits (hence the police presence often times to force them to disperse). The sit-ins at restaurants were also illegal because the law clearly dictated separation of the races. Why do you think Rosa Parks got arrested when she refused to move from the seat? It was illegal for her to sit there according to the law. That's the point I was getting at -- numerous people throughout the history of the US have worked outside of the system of law to create substantive change.

 

It isn't about bitterness of not being able to get high legally. It's about personal choice and the fundamental right of a person to have the self-determination to put what they want to into their body as long as they don't harm another person.

 

Drugs were banned because of very overt racism (take some of these Hearst headlines)

1930: “Marihuana is responsible for the raping of white women by crazed negroes.”

1935: “Marihuana influenced negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on white men’s shadows, and look at a white woman twice.”

 

Hearst had lots of reasons to help. First, he hated Mexicans. Second, he had invested heavily in the timber industry to support his newspaper chain and didn't want to see the development of hemp paper in competition. Third, he had lost 800,000 acres of timberland to Pancho Villa, so he hated Mexicans. Fourth, telling lurid lies about Mexicans (and the devil marijuana weed causing violence) sold newspapers, making him rich.

 

Some samples from the San Francisco Examiner:

 

"Marihuana makes fiends of boys in thirty days -- Hashish goads users to bloodlust."

 

"By the tons it is coming into this country -- the deadly, dreadful poison that racks and tears not only the body, but the very heart and soul of every human being who once becomes a slave to it in any of its cruel and devastating forms.... Marihuana is a short cut to the insane asylum. Smoke marihuana cigarettes for a month and what was once your brain will be nothing but a storehouse of horrid specters. Hasheesh makes a murderer who kills for the love of killing out of the mildest mannered man who ever laughed at the idea that any habit could ever get him...."

 

And other nationwide columns...

 

"Users of marijuana become STIMULATED as they inhale the drug and are LIKELY TO DO ANYTHING. Most crimes of violence in this section, especially in country districts are laid to users of that drug."

 

"Was it marijuana, the new Mexican drug, that nerved the murderous arm of Clara Phillips when she hammered out her victim's life in Los Angeles?... THREE-FOURTHS OF THE CRIMES of violence in this country today are committed by DOPE SLAVES -- that is a matter of cold record."

 

--

Racism and cheap tawdy journalism along with the fact that DuPont, Kimberly Clark and pharma companies wanted cannabis banned was the reason that it was banned. They were going to get their asses kicked on a free market with the products that hemp would be able to produce.

 

I mean, if the US government through cannabis was so evil, why would they produce a film with this title during World War II?

 

As for the increasing amount of the public growing to want decrim of marijuana -- talk to USA Today and not me about that. I merely cited their poll.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

What we seem to want to do is become a third world country and give so much power to the government. I am amazed how people want to allow the government total access to their lives. They trust the legal system totally. (Thank God they got the OJ verdict right). Somehow it has become the more conservative people who demand more government intervention. More government powers. About opposite of the small government, less laws, less government interference, ideals of my father's brand of conservatism.

 

There is a balance in handling prisoners and it varies by the crime and the prisoner. A times, prisoners have had it too easy, now a pendulum is swinging too far the other side. In the grand scheme of things, no big deal. It will always come back to center.

 

 

 

Where have you been for the last, I dunno, forever?

[Texsox]

Where have you been for the last, I dunno, forever?

Prison

 

 

My job with Boy Scouts had me stationed on South Padre Island leading a program in SCUBA, sailing, fishing, snorkling, etc. for the past two months.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Marihuana is a short cut to the insane asylum.

 

 

Actually there is truth to that.

 

Some conclusions established with some degree of certainty....................that sustained early-adolescent cannabis use among certain genetically predisposed individuals has an elevated correlation with certain mental illness outcomes, ranging from momentary minor psychotic episodes to clinical schizophrenia [25][26];

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Actually there is truth to that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana

Nuke, you forgot the last part of that research where it said "causality has not been established". That kinda puts a gaping hole in the point.

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jul 30, 2006 -> 07:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ive seen polls where allowing medical marijuana garnered some fairly decent support but de-criminalizing all narcotics like LCR was talking about will never fly in this country.

Ever hear of a state called Alaska? Althought all narcotics are not unbanned, possessing a small amount of pot is legal. Like you said, if people really wanted to legalize pot, they would.

Edited July 31, 2006 by santo=dorf

[Texsox]

I have never smoked the stuff so maybe my views are out of step and naive, but it seems to me that most of the problems would be solved by legalizing marijuana. It would stop being a "gateway" and the quality should increase, avoiding the poisons that reportedly have been introduced. We could lower enforcement costs and increase taxes. I don't see a downside besides the usual ones that are also shared by alcohol and cigarettes.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I have never smoked the stuff so maybe my views are out of step and naive, but it seems to me that most of the problems would be solved by legalizing marijuana. It would stop being a "gateway" and the quality should increase, avoiding the poisons that reportedly have been introduced. We could lower enforcement costs and increase taxes. I don't see a downside besides the usual ones that are also shared by alcohol and cigarettes.

 

 

Don't de-criminalize the stuff but punish 1st time offenders for posession with a heavy fine. Dealers get tossed in the pokey though.

 

Ever hear of a state called Alaska? Althought all narcotics are not unbanned, possessing a small amount of pot is legal. Like you said, if people really wanted to legalize pot, they would.

 

 

Unfortunately for you the Supreme Court sided with the federal government in an 8-0 decision upholding federal statuates making marijuana illegal so in spite of that law it is still illegal in Alaska as well as the rest of the country by virtue of federal law.

[Balta1701]

Unfortunately for you the Supreme Court sided with the federal government in an 8-0 decision upholding federal statuates making marijuana illegal so in spite of that law it is still illegal in Alaska as well as the rest of the country by virtue of federal law.

Yeah, but Alaska is too far away from the rest of the states and too sparsely populated for the Feds to actually be interested in expending resources on enforcement up there (it makes a really poor example), so if the state doesn't do the enforcing, no one will.