ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 2 of 6
< 12 3456 >
Patteeu Memorial Political Forum>Minnesota's criminal justice fees often fall hardest on poor
displacedinMN 07:36 AM 05-02-2021
No shit sherlock. Maybe dont do crimes.

Spoiler!


Related article

Spoiler!


This commentary Ugh

Spoiler!

[Reply]
Baby Lee 07:39 PM 05-02-2021
Originally Posted by POND_OF_RED:
If you are claiming that it’s based on ancillary behaviors than those behaviors should and do carry their own punishments and shouldn’t be tied together with stereotypes of common offenders. That’s not how laws work.

Somehow you’re not connecting the dots of why those ancillary behaviors are occurring, though. Neither one is more addictive than the other. Crack is actually the weaker of the two substances and that’s why it seems more addictive. The fact is that it comes back to different classes because the lower class can’t afford to get addicted to cocaine and when they are addicted don’t even have money for the cheaper substance therefore end up in the streets begging for their next high.

The issue is that the people who are able to get addicted to cocaine are the children of your lawmakers and politicians. It’s all about class and you’re absolutely kidding yourself if you’re trying to convince yourself otherwise.
Yeah, . . . exactly what I thought.

Originally Posted by POND_OF_RED:
please explain what makes Crack a harsher drug than Cocaine. Can you come up with a reasonable explanation
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
If you're actually asking for an explanation, . . .

[Reply]
NJChiefsFan27 08:10 PM 05-02-2021
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
To be brief and blunt, cocaine use has ancillary results of messy bathroom counters and overtalkative people at parties, crack use results in muggings and break-ins and alley BJs.
Crack cocaine gives a more intense high, but this explanation is nonsense. The upper class wouldn't be mugging people on the street or getting "back alley BJs" if they used the crack form of cocaine. You're smart enough to understand that correlation does not equal causation so I'm going to assume you're being intentionally dishonest here and are just hoping that nobody notices.
[Reply]
POND_OF_RED 08:19 PM 05-02-2021
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
Yeah, . . . exactly what I thought.
You quoted me but must not have read the reasonable part. What you posted was actually borderline Reagan level reasoning.
[Reply]
Baby Lee 08:26 PM 05-02-2021
Originally Posted by POND_OF_RED:
If you are claiming that it’s based on ancillary behaviors than those behaviors should and do carry their own punishments and shouldn’t be tied together with stereotypes of common offenders. That’s not how laws work.

Somehow you’re not connecting the dots of why those ancillary behaviors are occurring, though. Neither one is more addictive than the other. Crack is actually the weaker of the two substances and that’s why it seems more addictive. The fact is that it comes back to different classes because the lower class can’t afford to get addicted to cocaine and when they are addicted don’t even have money for the cheaper substance therefore end up in the streets begging for their next high.

The issue is that the people who are able to get addicted to cocaine are the children of your lawmakers and politicians. It’s all about class and you’re absolutely kidding yourself if you’re trying to convince yourself otherwise.
Originally Posted by NJChiefsFan27:
Crack cocaine gives a more intense high, but this explanation is nonsense. The upper class wouldn't be mugging people on the street or getting "back alley BJs" if they used the crack form of cocaine. You're smart enough to understand that correlation does not equal causation so I'm going to assume you're being intentionally dishonest here and are just hoping that nobody notices.
All right, what are you two trying to assert?

This disparity didn't arise because politicians or elites decided out of nowhere that poor people weren't entitled to consume narcotics but rich people were.

The disparity arose because crack was cheap and potent enough that statistically more poor and desperate people were close enough to the experience that they could engage in some pernicious ancillary behaviors to get that high.

Are you asserting that, even if people behave civilized while altered by substances, all consumption of altering substances should be treated the exact same. Or are you asserting that the poor and desperate are just as entitled to consume mind-altering substances, even if one demographic consumes them with little or no ancillary anti-social behabors, while the other consumes them ancillary to rampant anti-social behaviors.

The disparity arose because law-abiding people IN those poor and desperate communities went to politicians and pleaded with them to do something about people so jonesing for crack that they're mugging, robbing, burgling and prostituting. They made their case that the drug consumption patterns were sufficiently tied to those behaviors to make the enhancement rational.

And I'm not even asserting these rationales, . . . I'm reminding people that those were the rationales passionately pleaded by the people affected in that time and place.
[Reply]
Katipan 08:30 PM 05-02-2021
Ach Baby you have a very romantic idea of what cocaine users are like.
[Reply]
Baby Lee 08:31 PM 05-02-2021
Originally Posted by POND_OF_RED:
You quoted me but must not have read the reasonable part. What you posted was actually borderline Reagan level reasoning.
Why thank you . . . such unexpected accolades. . . .
[Reply]
Baby Lee 08:33 PM 05-02-2021
Originally Posted by Katipan:
Ach Baby you have a very romantic idea of what cocaine users are like.
I'm, not asserting that they're angels, just that they didn't have an affect on the law-abiding that would drive them to put pressure on legislators like those affected by crack were.

If you prefer, we can return to the paradigm of moral rot, and treat all mind-altering substances harshly? :-)
[Reply]
POND_OF_RED 08:57 PM 05-02-2021
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
I'm, not asserting that they're angels, just that they didn't have an affect on the law-abiding that would drive them to put pressure on legislators like those affected by crack were.

If you prefer, we can return to the paradigm of moral rot, and treat all mind-altering substances harshly? :-)
Sorry, a lot of us are having a hard time trying to connect the dots on this circle you’re speaking in. I think I’m figuring it out now that you clued me into your love of Reagan, though.

So you’re saying that it was justifiable to create the harsher sentencing because the drug was more addictive and cheaper so having 5 rocks for personal use was just as dangerous to the country as having 500 grams for redistribution of the stronger more expensive drug because the people who bought it didn’t end up broke and on the streets begging and stealing to feed their addiction. Was that really your “reasonable explanation” on how it wasn’t about punishing different classes but instead just about punishing separate ancillary behaviors? Ancillary behaviors that are also tied to different classes because they can afford different things and therefore resort to different means for feeding their addictions.

Are the dots connected now or do you want to go around in a circle again until we’re all dizzy and confused enough to understand your logic?
[Reply]
RubberSponge 08:59 PM 05-02-2021
Plenty of poor use powder cocaine and plenty of wealthy use crack. IMO debating over which class uses what is like arguing over which class of heroin users sniff it or pound it in a vein. Which meth users smokes or sniffs. Whether a pain pill junkie smokes it or swallows it. Drugs are cheap. Period.
[Reply]
POND_OF_RED 09:01 PM 05-02-2021
Originally Posted by RubberSponge:
Plenty of poor use powder cocaine and plenty of wealthy use crack. IMO debating over which class uses what is like arguing over which class of heroin users sniff it or pound it in a vein. Which meth users smokes or sniffs. Whether a pain pill junkie smokes it or swallows it. Drugs are cheap. Period.
Haha. You obviously have no idea about street market values. Some of you are either really showing your age or you’re just completely delusional.
[Reply]
Baby Lee 09:05 PM 05-02-2021
Originally Posted by POND_OF_RED:
Sorry, a lot of us are having a hard time trying to connect the dots on this circle you’re speaking in. I think I’m figuring it out now that you clued me into your love of Reagan, though.

So you’re saying that it was justifiable to create the harsher sentencing because the drug was more addictive and cheaper so having 5 rocks for personal use was just as dangerous to the country as having 500 grams for redistribution of the stronger more expensive drug because the people who bought it didn’t end up broke and on the streets begging and stealing to feed their addiction. Was that really your “reasonable explanation” on how it wasn’t about punishing different classes but instead just about punishing separate ancillary behaviors? Ancillary behaviors that are also tied to different classes because they can afford different things and therefore resort to different means for feeding their addictions.

Are the dots connected now or do you want to go around in a circle again until we’re all dizzy and confused enough to understand your logic?
I already asked you what YOU were trying to assert.

'My' explanation is a recitation of the rationales of those who made the decision. I'm not asserting it as a better or worse rationale. I'm EXPLAINING it, as you asked.

Clearly you have criticism, so it seems incumbent that your criticism contain a superior strategy.

So should all mind-altering consumption be punished because the act itself is moral rot, or should all mind-altering consumption be unpunished, even if it leads some to rampant anti-social behavior? What alternative are you advocating?

Something I think you are hinting at that I haven't addressed is that the ancillary crimes that come with cheap and widely available drugs are not as amenible to effective prosecution as drug busts. If you have some fiend out there robbing people and doing break-ins, often within their family, you have problems of proof and the pain of testifying and the leniency on 'property crimes' that strip a lot of the consequences away from this anti-social behavior. But if someone is busted with crack, it's a good proxy for the things they did to get it and all that's involved is the law enforcement officer testifying to the apprehension and arrest, as opposed to some grandmama going to court to testify that her grandson stole that specific thing out of her house at this particular time and place, etc. etc. etc.
[Reply]
scho63 09:15 PM 05-02-2021
Sadly I've had a lot of interaction with the police in my life, 99% due to speeding. Like 70 times.

However, I NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, EVER resisted arrest, fought with the police or ran.

That seems to be a common sense approach but not today with what the Dems have taught the minority community.

They never say, " don't flee, put your hands where the cops can see you, dont reach for anything in your vehicle until asked by the police and don't resist arrest."

I realize the black experience is different in some respect but JFC don't be so stupid.
[Reply]
RubberSponge 09:15 PM 05-02-2021
Originally Posted by POND_OF_RED:
Haha. You obviously have no idea about street market values. Some of you are either really showing your age or you’re just completely delusional.
You really think cocaine costs a lot?

I bet you could find a eighth of powder cocaine for $120 in almost in city in the united states. About the price of a half ounce of weed. Yep really expensive there.
[Reply]
NJChiefsFan27 09:44 PM 05-02-2021
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
All right, what are you two trying to assert?

This disparity didn't arise because politicians or elites decided out of nowhere that poor people weren't entitled to consume narcotics but rich people were.

The disparity arose because crack was cheap and potent enough that statistically more poor and desperate people were close enough to the experience that they could engage in some pernicious ancillary behaviors to get that high.

Are you asserting that, even if people behave civilized while altered by substances, all consumption of altering substances should be treated the exact same. Or are you asserting that the poor and desperate are just as entitled to consume mind-altering substances, even if one demographic consumes them with little or no ancillary anti-social behabors, while the other consumes them ancillary to rampant anti-social behaviors.

The disparity arose because law-abiding people IN those poor and desperate communities went to politicians and pleaded with them to do something about people so jonesing for crack that they're mugging, robbing, burgling and prostituting. They made their case that the drug consumption patterns were sufficiently tied to those behaviors to make the enhancement rational.

And I'm not even asserting these rationales, . . . I'm reminding people that those were the rationales passionately pleaded by the people affected in that time and place.
The moral panic over crack cocaine in the 80s was fueled by a stunning amount of misinformation and sensationalism from the media and the difference in effect on behavior between crack and the powder form has never been borne out with any evidence - certainly not anything that would warrant the sentencing discrepancy we're talking about. Whether community leaders or politicians meant well or not, the mandatory minimums around crack cocaine possession were incredibly harmful to poorer communities and more specifically African Americans and you can extend that to the war on drugs as a whole. When people speak about systemic racism, it is exactly these kinds of policies that have set those communities back generations.
[Reply]
cosmo20002 10:23 PM 05-02-2021
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
If you're actually asking for an explanation, . . . it's not so much as punishing different classes differently, as punishing different ancillary behaviors differently.

Crack and cocaine have the same base narcotic, but it is cheaper, more addictive, and a quicker high in crack form.

So the form of narcotic most available to the poor is also the most addictive and potent. Now if this was just a matter of 'punishing' drug use because good people shouldn't do drugs, it might seem unfair to punish the poor for being naughty more than the rich get punished for being naughty.

But the sentencing disparity arose from what type of people the crack addicted became in the community. Petty thefts, often violent, public sex acts in recompense for product, ruined real estate and property values when a crack house crops up, etc.

To be brief and blunt, cocaine use has ancillary results of messy bathroom counters and overtalkative people at parties, crack use results in muggings and break-ins and alley BJs.
:-)You are a fucking moron.
[Reply]
Page 2 of 6
< 12 3456 >
Up