A presidential pardon is an act of mercy, not justice. If it was handed out based on whether a person “deserved” it, nobody would get one.
Well, then, except for dismissible utopian anarchists, we’re all statists.
The quality of mercy is not strained, eh? I take your point and Obama certainly doesn’t need to justify his choices to me or anybody else. I just found it a curious list on first reading, although some of the posts above did provide some enlightenment (people near the end of their sentences, etc).
If you should see the President tell him I’ll give him a pass on this one. 
I think that the historic wrongs are those perpetrated by the dealers; most of the black crack dealers are bigger fuckups than the white coke dealers. The network among coke dealers is more sedate AND you don’t see white dealers wearing gangsta colors and flashing signs.
Sorry, gotta be more than just black to go to prison.
Oh no, white coke dealers never run round in gangs, flashing colors or killing rival gangs.
Geez, Gigo. Do you even bother to read things you cite or do you just go "Woah! It was published in a journal and therefore it MUST BE TRUE! Because SCIENTIST!!!'? (Yes, I was beat to the punch on this one, however the idiocy of this is so outstanding that I can’t pass this up)
The article you cited states:
Without linking to the ‘new’ paper. There is, however, a link to the original paper.
Here is where the stupidity begins. The original paperstates (note, you can sign up for a free account to actually read the paper):
and
.
So the original paper was a poll. A poll where ~2/3rds of the people asked to participate in the poll didn’t even bother to respond.
Additionally:
Once they got a few people to respond to the first poll, they used those results for a second poll.
This study is trash. They took a poll of a few folks and call it science. It is absolute bullshit.
A rational way to look at this would be to find FACTS on the negative behaviors related to the various drugs, FACTS on the crime rate related to the various drugs and then, once that is complete, you can start actually analyzing actual data.
For the record, I believe the laws on drugs need to be looked at, hard. Users of the drugs who are arrested ought to be treated as addicts instead of criminals unless there is an additional crime involved*. The dealers, on the other hand, not so much.
Slee
*You state that “anyone that is in prison for drug offences that were not involved in violence are our political prisoners”**. What about theft? Breaking and entering? Fraud? I know a ton of addicts/alcoholics and a reasonable percentage of them did all the above and more, without resorting to violence, in an effort to get their next fix.
** Which is absolute b.s.
I have seen this argument before against surveys of climate scientists, the ones that showed how they are in agreement. Same lousy argument that ignores how polls and surveys work.
As pointed it is then important to see if other research confirmed that, and I was aware of other studies indeed.
I have to clarify then, although I thought that the context was clear, the violent part was about their arrest, if other crimes were made I think they they should not get off the hook.
Nope, I do not agree with most of what Waymore is telling us about the tax evaders and others, but knowing the history of how things like marijuana were made illegal, it is clear that a lot of political and prejudice ideas were used to make it so. And to keep them illegal now.
-
I never said that white coke dealers don’t run around in gangs. You invented that.
-
You forgot the “fuckup factor” that I mentioned.
-
I never said that white coke dealers don’t kill rival gangs. You invented that.
-
Anything else you care to invent, and pass off as mine? My post was pretty short, so, I’m impressed that you could generate so much shit. Your example wasn’t too bad, tho; albeit, a bad analogy. (Let’s see…the first person that Dorothy met…hmmm…Scarecrow…a Man…made of Straw…)
Thank you.
Firstly I would not make the distinction you made above. A clown who refuses to pay his taxes, and as a result gets jailed can still be a political prisoner, if he does other things like Schiff did.
Political prisoners are usually incarcerated because they present a threat to the state. Denial of tax revenue is a significant threat to the U.S. government. Schiff was the most visible advocate in spreading the anti-tax “message”. Tax evaders are quiet figures. Tax protestors do their work in broad daylight. Schiff was a protestor. He eagerly sought an audience for his “message”. He was convicted of helping 3100 people “falsify” their tax returns, costing the govt $57 million in revenue. Again tax evaders do not have a following. Political prisoners have a following.
Schiff was forbidden by the govt from selling his book. A book he wrote in jail. He and his associates were forced to turn over a list of customers.
If that doesn’t scream political prisoner, nothing does.
If Schiff was more successful in spreading the “message”, he would have created serious problems for the government. The govt knew this, which is why he was punished more severely than mere tax evaders. He was condemned to die in jail, while being denied access to medical treatment.
Schmitt brought his “message” to the little people. That’s what got him locked up. If he was a jet setting lawyer with connections to Jeff Immelt, it would have been an entirely different story. In other words if Schiff was politically favored, he wouldn’t have seen jail.
Because it’s easy, would be my guess. Just the sound of the word conveys a sense of grey, tyrannical facelessness.
…which tends to mesh well with his apparent default position that government is, by definition, grey, faceless tyranny.
After talking to a former prison warden and some former prison guards I’m convinced that a governor or even president could walk thru our prisons and pardon easily half or more of the prisoners and there would not be a serious problem. Why? They were young and stupid when they committed their crimes and have learned their lesson.
The truly dangerous people who will no doubt hurt others or cause problems could then be dealt with better.
Then I guess nothing does.