Hearing

[Perianne]

They are showing a hearing on C-SPAN today about the federal prison system. Many are pushing for drug sentences to be reduced or removed. I personally do not feel sorry for drug offenders. Do you?

[Kathianne]

They are showing a hearing on C-SPAN today about the federal prison system. Many are pushing for drug sentences to be reduced or removed. I personally do not feel sorry for drug offenders. Do you?

It's not a matter of 'feeling sorry' for them, as much as a waste of resources. Then add in the possibility of gang or extreme religion indoctrination and the costs soar.

[Perianne]

It's not a matter of 'feeling sorry' for them, as much as a waste of resources. Then add in the possibility of gang or extreme religion indoctrination and the costs soar.

Do you agree that drug sentences should be reduced or even eliminated?

[Kathianne]

Do you agree that drug sentences should be reduced or even eliminated?

I think that programs to help get off drugs and learn a trade, (as opposed to community service) would be a better use of resources-also much less expensive.

[gabosaurus]

I feel the same way about drunken driving arrests. I feel our sentencing is way too light. There are people still on the road with dozens of DUI and DWI convictions.
I want a three strike rule. Three convictions and you are barred from driving for life. I also believe there should be a DWI/DUI registry, in line with the sexual offender registry. More than one conviction and you have to register.

Most drug offenses are for pot. Which should be legalized and taxed like tobacco. You can't tell me pot is more harmful than tobacco.
I have zero tolerance for hardline drugs. And no, I have never taken any drugs. Nor have I ever smoked anything.

[sundaydriver]

Gone are the days when selling some weed to your friends was a harmless past time, now it's treated like a major crime with arrest and mention in the local paper for having a roach & drug paraphernalia (rolling paper & such). How embarrassing to be a criminal for less than1 gram of pot.

[Drummond]

Do you agree that drug sentences should be reduced or even eliminated?

I'm all for zero tolerance. I see no reason not to either maintain what you have, or if anything, make sentences more draconian. After all, where hard drugs are concerned, life and death situations can be involved.

[Drummond]

Gone are the days when selling some weed to your friends was a harmless past time, now it's treated like a major crime with arrest and mention in the local paper for having a roach & drug paraphernalia (rolling paper & such). How embarrassing to be a criminal for less than1 gram of pot.

If it's not a 'major crime', it undoubtedly should be. I see nothing wrong in what you're describing.

Even if you're discussing 'soft' drugs, how often do the users of them turn to hard drugs .. AND convince others down that same path ? It's not even as if the type of drug is necessarily the issue .. the addictive personality choosing to use them, might turn to hard drugs purely BECAUSE he or she has the personality to try them.

[Drummond]

I feel the same way about drunken driving arrests. I feel our sentencing is way too light. There are people still on the road with dozens of DUI and DWI convictions.
I want a three strike rule. Three convictions and you are barred from driving for life. I also believe there should be a DWI/DUI registry, in line with the sexual offender registry. More than one conviction and you have to register.

Most drug offenses are for pot. Which should be legalized and taxed like tobacco. You can't tell me pot is more harmful than tobacco.
I have zero tolerance for hardline drugs. And no, I have never taken any drugs. Nor have I ever smoked anything.

Heh heh. You were indeed wise not to discuss politics with Left wingers in my country, Gabby. Remarkably few Lefties here would identify a 'heavier sentencing' outlook as remotely Leftie ! Indeed, I've often mused on the possibility that maybe our Lefties prefer a very liberal approach to them, because they understand that it can only help the Left get elected, if you're stoned out of your mind when you vote !!:laugh:

Trust me, Gabby. You're more Right wing than you like to think you are .. certainly by British standards. Such a pity that none of my compatriots told you so, face-to-face ... :cool:

[Drummond]

They are showing a hearing on C-SPAN today about the federal prison system. Many are pushing for drug sentences to be reduced or removed. I personally do not feel sorry for drug offenders. Do you?:clap::clap:

Not at all.

[Perianne]

If it's not a 'major crime', it undoubtedly should be. I see nothing wrong in what you're describing.

Even if you're discussing 'soft' drugs, how often do the users of them turn to hard drugs .. AND convince others down that same path ? It's not even as if the type of drug is necessarily the issue .. the addictive personality choosing to use them, might turn to hard drugs purely BECAUSE he or she has the personality to try them.

I believe I may have a double personality. Drummond and I are the same person?? Could it be possible??? :)

[Perianne]

I think that programs to help get off drugs and learn a trade, (as opposed to community service) would be a better use of resources-also much less expensive.

No one had to pay for me to get off drugs and learn a trade.

Let's face it: there is a certain percentage of people who ain't worth squat.

[gabosaurus]

Trust me, Gabby. You're more Right wing than you like to think you are .. certainly by British standards. Such a pity that none of my compatriots told you so, face-to-face ... :cool:

You should have gone with me to Italy. They think I am a stone cold conservative.

[Perianne]

You should have gone with me to Italy. They think I am a stone cold conservative.

But didn't that make you feel good?

[Drummond]

You should have gone with me to Italy. They think I am a stone cold conservative.

I'm not surprised. Some UK Lefties would come to the same conclusion.

[Drummond]

But didn't that make you feel good?:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

I think it did. I detect some pride in her post !!

[Gunny]

Do you agree that drug sentences should be reduced or even eliminated?

I think busting addicts is stupid. Nothing's getting solved. In the meantime, we have whackadoodles running around killing people while COps abuse their authority over misdemeanors.

[Perianne]

I think busting addicts is stupid. Nothing's getting solved. In the meantime, we have whackadoodles running around killing people while COps abuse their authority over misdemeanors.

I agree with you with the caveat that they are responsible for themselves and the rest of us should not have to pay for their weaknesses.

[sundaydriver]

Gone are the days when selling some weed to your friends was a harmless past time, now it's treated like a major crime with arrest and mention in the local paper for having a roach & drug paraphernalia (rolling paper & such). How embarrassing to be a criminal for less than1 gram of pot.


If it's not a 'major crime', it undoubtedly should be. I see nothing wrong in what you're describing.

Even if you're discussing 'soft' drugs, how often do the users of them turn to hard drugs .. AND convince others down that same path ? It's not even as if the type of drug is necessarily the issue .. the addictive personality choosing to use them, might turn to hard drugs purely BECAUSE he or she has the personality to try them.

Again I see you go with a big government approach to any problem. Quite a number of US cities have decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana while two states have made it legal due to realizing it made sense. The police & government came to the conclusion that it required too many resources and was unfair to arrest & convict for personal possession of pot and making criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens served no purpose.

Currently the largest growing number of people addicted to hard drugs in the US are middle aged women turning to heroin after years of being prescribed pain relievers by their physicians. Do you think they should be treated or just locked away?

[Kathianne]

I agree with you with the caveat that they are responsible for themselves and the rest of us should not have to pay for their weaknesses.
The cost of prison, which includes all room & board & healthcare-not too mention if they were supporting anyone on the outside, that may now cause further demands on the welfare state. Then there is the increasing possibility of the 'addict' learning new ways to 'earn' money; becoming radicalized by gangs/extreme religious.

Which is the most cost effective way of going about this?

Hell, even in the old days, prisons realized that non-violent offenders needed to do 'something', whether making license plates or tending roads. Problem was, the skills they learned didn't really transfer when they got out.

While I agree with Gabs on DUI/DWI offenders, 'registers and lifetime losing licenses,' will be as effective as all the gun laws currently are. They will get cars and drive w/o license or insurance; they will not care about registering.

[Drummond]

Again I see you go with a big government approach to any problem. Quite a number of US cities have decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana while two states have made it legal due to realizing it made sense. The police & government came to the conclusion that it required too many resources and was unfair to arrest & convict for personal possession of pot and making criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens served no purpose.

Currently the largest growing number of people addicted to hard drugs in the US are middle aged women turning to heroin after years of being prescribed pain relievers by their physicians. Do you think they should be treated or just locked away?

I'm astonished that EVEN a Leftie would seek to be soft on this. I don't care what group of people are the heaviest users .. they can still go on to persuade others to also become users. We're talking about something that can ultimately lead a person to their death !!

As for 'big Government' ... what greater task can Government have to protect its people from deadly harm ? Just as they had a right to act in the aftermath of 9/11, so they also have a right to act against an ONGOING problem which is also killing people !! Except .. 9/11 ended on that day (even if future threats are out there). Deaths from drug abuse STILL happen.

There is another similarity of approach which should be considered. GW Bush wanted to arrange a status quo where the world was too toxic a place for terrorism to thrive within it. What on earth is wrong with creating such a climate for drug pushers, through WHATEVER deterrence measures can be instituted ?

Are you seriously saying that, with the success of such a climate and status quo instituted, that people wouldn't end up leading happier, healthier lives ? WHO - SANELY - WOULD WANT TO FIGHT THAT ??

This 'let's be soft on drugs' issue is nothing more than another Left-wing initiative aimed at their idea of political correctness. It shocks me to see that the Left have had such a success with it.

[Perianne]

I'm astonished that EVEN a Leftie would seek to be soft on this. I don't care what group of people are the heaviest users .. they can still go on to persuade others to also become users. We're talking about something that can ultimately lead a person to their death !!

As for 'big Government' ... what greater task can Government have to protect its people from deadly harm ? Just as they had a right to act in the aftermath of 9/11, so they also have a right to act against an ONGOING problem which is also killing people !! Except .. 9/11 ended on that day (even if future threats are out there). Deaths from drug abuse STILL happen.

There is another similarity of approach which should be considered. GW Bush wanted to arrange a status quo where the world was too toxic a place for terrorism to thrive within it. What on earth is wrong with creating such a climate for drug pushers, through WHATEVER deterrence measures can be instituted ?

Are you seriously saying that, with the success of such a climate and status quo instituted, that people wouldn't end up leading happier, healthier lives ? WHO - SANELY - WOULD WANT TO FIGHT THAT ??

This 'let's be soft on drugs' issue is nothing more than another Left-wing initiative aimed at their idea of political correctness. It shocks me to see that the Left have had such a success with it.

Drummond, you are the greatest ever. :clap:

[Perianne]

Gone are the days when selling some weed to your friends was a harmless past time, now it's treated like a major crime with arrest and mention in the local paper for having a roach & drug paraphernalia (rolling paper & such). How embarrassing to be a criminal for less than1 gram of pot.

Well then, don't do it. Simple solution.

If only I were in charge of the world it would be a better place. Or better yet, if I were in charge of the world I would appoint Drummond as boss. Yep. That would fix nearly everything.

[Kathianne]

What surprises me in this discussion are those that claim to be for 'smaller government and more personal responsibility' are invoking more government and more dependence by individuals on the government. Truly mind boggling.

Prisons for non-violent, self-abusive persons are training grounds for turning out violent, anti-social people. That's not even addressing the issues of keeping them housed, fed, and medical/dental.

[Perianne]

What surprises me in this discussion are those that claim to be for 'smaller government and more personal responsibility' are invoking more government and more dependence by individuals on the government. Truly mind boggling.

Prisons for non-violent, self-abusive persons are training grounds for turning out violent, anti-social people. That's not even addressing the issues of keeping them housed, fed, and medical/dental.

We are not enforcing personal responsibility so the next best option is to lock them up. I actually don't mind paying taxes for that.

[Jeff]

I feel the same way about drunken driving arrests. I feel our sentencing is way too light. There are people still on the road with dozens of DUI and DWI convictions.
I want a three strike rule. Three convictions and you are barred from driving for life. I also believe there should be a DWI/DUI registry, in line with the sexual offender registry. More than one conviction and you have to register.

Most drug offenses are for pot. Which should be legalized and taxed like tobacco. You can't tell me pot is more harmful than tobacco.
I have zero tolerance for hardline drugs. And no, I have never taken any drugs. Nor have I ever smoked anything.

Gabs unless the law changed the third offense pretty much makes it where you are done, not the penalty for the DUI ( I think that was 10 year loss of lisc. for the 3rd offense, but the cost ) My X brother in law had 52 points on his lisc. by the time he was 18 and at least 3 DUI's, we sat and figured it out one night, he had to pay set amount for each point ( you lose one or two every year you go without a ticket, at that rate he was in trouble ) and then for each DUI in order to get his Lisc. back he had a massive penalty to pay, it worked out for him to get his Lisc. ( not insurance or registration just his driver lisc. ) was going to coast him like 60,000 grand a year :laugh: That was like 25 years ago and he still has no lisc. but at least in NJ the most time he can pull for a driving offense is 7 days ( unless of course there is property damage or someone gets hurt )he usually gets like 3 weekends, so he goes out Friday night and gets drunk as a skunk, walks in to report to the jail Saturday Morning and if they have room ( yes most weekends they send him home because they don't have room and he is credited for time served because he showed up) or they bring him in, see that he is 3 sheets to the wind and send him to lock up ( a nice quiet cell where he is all alone and sleeps all day ) he tells me he wakes up in time for dinner and then crashes again, wakes up Sunday morning and goes home. Somehow they need to redo this law, he has told me only stupid people pay the high insurance bills and registration, hell he says he drives everyday and maybe gets caught twice a year, where as he does his weekends and goes about his business.

Now as far as jail time it use to be at least, first offense for DUI you could get 6 months, but most just lost there Lisc. for 6 months and paid fines out the butt, 2nd offense was mandatory 6 months in jail and major fines, and 3rd offense was 2 years in jail, now this is going way back in the day, I have had no reason to concern myself as of late so it may of changed.

[Kathianne]

We are not enforcing personal responsibility so the next best option is to lock them up. I actually don't mind paying taxes for that.

But you do mind the violent criminals they become upon release, no? The lone wolves?

[Kathianne]

http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/why-extremist-chaplains-have-access-us-prisons

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/01/22/379081047/french-prisons-prove-to-be-effective-incubators-for-islamic-extremism

http://www.rt.com/uk/247409-prison-islamic-radicalisation/

http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/21/u-s-prisons-churning-out-thousands-of-radicalized-inmates/

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/pnoesp.pdf

https://leb.fbi.gov/2010/october/prisoner-radicalization

[Jeff]

I see where some say the laws have changed, here in GA my wife was a property manager and she got called in one night because someone was living in a apartment that didn't live there, well i was the maintenance man ( yup tried to come off the road after my heart attack ) well we got the cops there and went in, there was a lit cigarette in the ashtray and a 9mm sitting on the coffee table, but we couldn't find anyone in the apartment, so the cop got us out and back up came, they wound up finding 13 lbs of weed and some coke, the girl that rented the apartment supposedly sub leased it to her brother being she moved in with her BF, well they arrested her because legally the drugs where hers, the next day the brother turned himself in and she was released, but the cop was telling me that it really wasn't a big deal, he said now a days they hand out tickets and you must appear in court for anything less than 10 lbs, anyway right or wrong this guy who was living there illegally never did a day in jail, he payed fines and had some probation, they where more worried about the illegal gun than the drugs.

What I do think is wrong though is the 3rd strike thing, a guy gets busted for some weed a couple of times and gets locked up twice, the third time he gets busted for even one joint he can pull life, that is ridicules, I know I said in GA the laws are different, I am not sure if they have changed everywhere as well but back in the day I remember Howard Stern had a guy on the phone interviewing him and he was in jail for just that, the cops came to his door because the joint he was smoking set the fire alarms off, and he was arrested, it was his 3rd offense so he was pulling life, that stinks.

[Perianne]

But you do mind the violent criminals they become upon release, no? The lone wolves?


http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/why-extremist-chaplains-have-access-us-prisons

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/01/22/379081047/french-prisons-prove-to-be-effective-incubators-for-islamic-extremism

http://www.rt.com/uk/247409-prison-islamic-radicalisation/

http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/21/u-s-prisons-churning-out-thousands-of-radicalized-inmates/

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/pnoesp.pdf

https://leb.fbi.gov/2010/october/prisoner-radicalization


Many of them were criminals before prison and remain criminals after prison. It's better to lock them up. If they commit again, lock them up and throw away the keys.

From your last link:

Criminal History Characteristics of Nonviolent Prison Releasees


• An estimated 95% of nonviolent releasees had an
arrest history preceding the arrest which resulted in
their imprisonment (table 6).
• More than 80% of those nonviolent offenders
released from prison have a prior conviction history.
• On average, the RAP sheets of nonviolent offenders
discharged from prison indicated 9.3 prior arrests and
4.1 prior convictions.
• Among nonviolent offenders, about a third had a
history of arrests for violent crimes. One in five had a
self-reported history of convictions for violence (table
7).

[Kathianne]

Many of them were criminals before prison and remain criminals after prison. It's better to lock them up. If they commit again, lock them up and throw away the keys.

From your last link:

Criminal History Characteristics of Nonviolent Prison Releasees


• An estimated 95% of nonviolent releasees had an
arrest history preceding the arrest which resulted in
their imprisonment (table 6).
• More than 80% of those nonviolent offenders
released from prison have a prior conviction history.
• On average, the RAP sheets of nonviolent offenders
discharged from prison indicated 9.3 prior arrests and
4.1 prior convictions.
• Among nonviolent offenders, about a third had a
history of arrests for violent crimes. One in five had a
self-reported history of convictions for violence (table
7).


Ummm, that previous 1/3 non-violent, committed violent crimes after release. That they had 'prior arrests' and convictions isn't surprising, as that is how the system is currently set up.

It doesn't make sense to lock up non-violent with violent, nor realistically doing so at all. It's too expensive and rehab in prisons has been a non-starter for over 150 years.

There are ways of addressing the problems that would cost far less in terms of destruction of families and tax dollars.

[Perianne]

Ummm, that previous 1/3 non-violent, committed violent crimes after release. That they had 'prior arrests' and convictions isn't surprising, as that is how the system is currently set up.

It doesn't make sense to lock up non-violent with violent, nor realistically doing so at all. It's too expensive and rehab in prisons has been a non-starter for over 150 years.

There are ways of addressing the problems that would cost far less in terms of destruction of families and tax dollars.

So, if someone breaks into my house and steals everything I have, we should not put them in prison? After all, it is not a violent crime.

If an illegal immigrant keeps crossing the border after deportation, we should not put them in prison? After all, it is not a violent crime.

Repeated DUIs without hurting anyone? Selling crack to a 12 year-old? A dirty man masturbating in a playground in front of children? Collecting child pornography? Poaching protected animals?

Come on, these are crimes against society and indicate a twisted mind. Although anyone can make a mistake, society is better off without repeat offenders.

Lock them up. If they come out worse then lock them up again for a longer period of time. Eventually they die and society is better off. At some point we have to face the fact that some people are bad.

Personally, I say execution for a third-time felon. I have little patience with bad people.

[Kathianne]

So, if someone breaks into my house and steals everything I have, we should not put them in prison? After all, it is not a violent crime.

If an illegal immigrant keeps crossing the border after deportation, we should not put them in prison? After all, it is not a violent crime.

Repeated DUIs without hurting anyone? Selling crack to a 12 year-old? A dirty man masturbating in a playground in front of children? Collecting child pornography? Poaching protected animals?

Come on, these are crimes against society and indicate a twisted mind. Although anyone can make a mistake, society is better off without repeat offenders.

Lock them up. If they come out worse then lock them up again for a longer period of time. Eventually they die and society is better off. At some point we have to face the fact that some people are bad.

Personally, I say execution for a third-time felon. I have little patience with bad people.

If someone breaks into your home, it isn't a 'non-violent' or 'victimless crime,' different things entirely.

Mixing in the illegals, is a strawman.

Selling crack, is not victimless.

Repeated DUI's shows the problem with how the problem is currently being handled-my original point.

Masturbating in front of a child is not victimless. Same with child porn. Same with poached animals. (Actually most of these crimes you are listing are harbingers of sociopaths.)

Funny how we agree on most of the things you've listed, but you never get around to addressing the sheer numbers locked up with hardened criminals and sociopaths and possible ways to deal with them in more cost effective and successful manner.

[Perianne]

If someone breaks into your home, it isn't a 'non-violent' or 'victimless crime,' different things entirely.

Mixing in the illegals, is a strawman.

Selling crack, is not victimless.

Repeated DUI's shows the problem with how the problem is currently being handled-my original point.

Masturbating in front of a child is not victimless. Same with child porn. Same with poached animals. (Actually most of these crimes you are listing are harbingers of sociopaths.)

Funny how we agree on most of the things you've listed, but you never get around to addressing the sheer numbers locked up with hardened criminals and sociopaths and possible ways to deal with them in more cost effective and successful manner.

Kathianne, now you are playing word games with me. Unless I overlooked it, you never said anything about "victimless". You spoke about non-violent crimes.

All the crimes I listed above are non-violent by definition, though they are not victimless.

I see what you are getting at with the hardened criminals and sociopaths. Duh on me. We should have minimum security prisons for the lesser criminals.



Non-violent crimes are those crimes that do not involve the use of any force or injury to another person. The seriousness of a non-violent crime is usually measured in terms of economic damage or loss to the victim.
Most non-violent crimes involve some sort of property crime such as larceny or theft.
- See more at: http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/non-violent-vs-violent-crimes.html#sthash.UPADjSHZ.dpuf

[Kathianne]

Kathianne, now you are playing word games with me. Unless I overlooked it, you never said anything about "victimless". You spoke about non-violent crimes.

All the crimes I listed above are non-violent by definition, though they are not victimless.

I see what you are getting at with the hardened criminals and sociopaths. Duh on me. We should have minimum security prisons for the lesser criminals.
Non-violent crimes are those crimes that do not involve the use of any force or injury to another person. The seriousness of a non-violent crime is usually measured in terms of economic damage or loss to the victim.
Most non-violent crimes involve some sort of property crime such as larceny or theft.
- See more at: http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/non-violent-vs-violent-crimes.html#sthash.UPADjSHZ.dpuf

No, I'm not playing word games. When discussing something like this, one must look at the totality of what you're addressing. Only an idiot would say that abusing children, breaking into homes, injuring animals are 'non-violent' in the sense of not harming society.

Same of course with addiction based 'crimes', the potential on harm we agree upon. The difference being that if the abuse is halted, the crime will too. Not true with anti-social based crimes.

I'm not a bleeding heart, far from it. However, I do believe that we have clogged the judicial system, the prison system, destroyed people's livelihoods and families, are spending a fortune, for a failed 'punishment.'

[PixieStix]

You should have gone with me to Italy. They think I am a stone cold conservative.
.
Time will tell. You are well on your way. Just stay here with us and we will show you the way :D

[Drummond]

Drummond, you are the greatest ever. :clap:

... aww, shucks !! .....:salute:

[Drummond]

What surprises me in this discussion are those that claim to be for 'smaller government and more personal responsibility' are invoking more government and more dependence by individuals on the government. Truly mind boggling.

Prisons for non-violent, self-abusive persons are training grounds for turning out violent, anti-social people. That's not even addressing the issues of keeping them housed, fed, and medical/dental.

For me, this 'Big Government v Small Government' argument is all about practicality. You should not PREFER Big Government. However, practicality demands that, to be truly realistic (.. as every Conservative should be, surely ?) you need to recognise that, in certain circumstances, nothing else will do.

Here's one thing I have a problem with. Say you have one set of anti-drug rules, and classifications, in one State. In another State, you have different laws in place, either stricter, or more lax. Surely, the drug pushers and 'barons' would just operate in whichever environment better suited them ? Result ... NEEDLESS DEATHS.

Perhaps State legislators could get together and agree a common, and effective, set of standards that all would implement ? But ... tell me I'm wrong ... I somehow don't think that could ever happen.

So, what's the way forward ? A Big Government solution, that allows no easy time for the drug trade ANYWHERE, OR, to have deaths and wholesale misery continue just through an ideologically-driven refusal to do what you must to correct the problem ?

[Kathianne]

For me, this 'Big Government v Small Government' argument is all about practicality. You should not PREFER Big Government. However, practicality demands that, to be truly realistic (.. as every Conservative should be, surely ?) you need to recognise that, in certain circumstances, nothing else will do.

Here's one thing I have a problem with. Say you have one set of anti-drug rules, and classifications, in one State. In another State, you have different laws in place, either stricter, or more lax. Surely, the drug pushers and 'barons' would just operate in whichever environment better suited them ? Result ... NEEDLESS DEATHS.

Perhaps State legislators could get together and agree a common, and effective, set of standards that all would implement ? But ... tell me I'm wrong ... I somehow don't think that could ever happen.

So, what's the way forward ? A Big Government solution, that allows no easy time for the drug trade ANYWHERE, OR, to have deaths and wholesale misery continue just through an ideologically-driven refusal to do what you must to correct the problem ?

Nope. We have differing beliefs regarding government. Federal has its place, now it's out of bounds.

I'm not changing my philosophy for expediency in reaching an immediate goal.

[Gunny]

I agree with you with the caveat that they are responsible for themselves and the rest of us should not have to pay for their weaknesses.

i agree.

[Drummond]

Nope. We have differing beliefs regarding government. Federal has its place, now it's out of bounds.

I'm not changing my philosophy for expediency in reaching an immediate goal.

You're not offering any helpful alternatives, however. Criticism has far greater value if, accompanying it, are comments which provide a viable alternative.

[Abbey Marie]

You should have gone with me to Italy. They think I am a stone cold conservative.

Our driver in Italy was telling us how little he thinks of Obama. Maybe we just lucked out and met the right sort of people there.

:cool:

[Abbey Marie]

I think busting addicts is stupid. Nothing's getting solved. In the meantime, we have whackadoodles running around killing people while COps abuse their authority over misdemeanors.

Perhaps instead of arrests, we should go back to the old days of putting people in stocks in the middle of the town. Embarrass them, let the kids see up close and in person what we think of their drug use, and then let them go with counseling.

[Kathianne]

Perhaps instead of arrests, we should go back to the old days of putting people in stocks in the middle of the town. Embarrass them, let the kids see up close and in person what we think of their drug use, and then let them go with counseling.

Perhaps some version of such.