"Life" for LSD.....

[koonja]

 

[magogian]

Lol, why is Gattaca's assumption outrageous or stupid?

This guy appears to be a small time dealer, i.e. a low income individual. Low income individuals typically receive far more in government benefits than they pay in taxes. So, although his assumption may ultimately be wrong, but it is a very fair assumption without knowing the particulars.

Does it conflict with your fantasies that small time dealers and users of hard drugs are just a bunch of wonderful, ordinary folks with good, steady jobs that, if not for the war on drugs, would all be model citizens?

 

[tommyIRISH23]

Drug sentencing is way way out of hand. Minimum mandatory sentencing laws are complete horse crap. This particular case is just total shit!

1 - We should legalize marijuana

2 - Drug sentencing for drugs still deemed by society too dangerous to be legalized should not be years it should be days/months. If not completely decriminalized or just a fine for just usage.

3 - Start treating drug addiction as a healthcare issue not a criminal issue.

Drug sentencing has destroyed lives. It has destroyed families. I think our inner cities would be in much much better shape if not for decades of the war on drugs breaking up and destroying families and ruining lives.
That and addressing teenage pregnancies which is another issue.

I'm a detective in one of the worst, if not the worst, cities in the country. I don't know about the LSD guys case but I do know a lot about drug distributing organizations, sentencing, and what REALLY destroys families with drug addicts.

1. You're missing the totality of what you read when you see a individual sentenced to 15-20 years for distribution. (Which rarely happens btw most 1-2nd offenders get months). A heroin, cocaine, crack, meth...etc distribution ring (even marijuana) almost always has homicides and other forms of sickening violence associated with it. Territory is at a premium and a lot of people die for it. Now the hard part in investigating is pinning bodies on 1 person with full proof evidence to convict. So the state uses drug sentencing laws as a way to stop the reign of terror that comes down on communities from these organizations.

2. Min sentencing requirements offer crucial leverage to compel cooperation. Without it my job becomes much more difficult.

3. Drug sentencing does not destroy families of drug addicts. What destroys families is the stealing, lying, failing out of rehab, disappearing for weeks at a time with the family not knowing if their loved one is dead or alive, and the cost that bankrupts families trying to get the addict help over the countless times he quits rehab, stops taking his medicine, and relapses. In fact, from my experience, most families prefer their addicted love one in jail bc they know they're alive and (supposedly) clean. Addicts have to want to get clean and by want they have to do more than talk about it. There's countless low cost programs available for addicts to help them and they quit the program. Sadly, after these battles that last 5-10-15 years the families are actually relieved and at peace bc they can move forward with their lives.

I know my opinion is not politically correct but the academics who have been in college for 20+ years need to get into the gutter and really open their eyes to what the issues actually are. Stats can be quoted endlessly but everyday I see a reality that doesn't quite add up to what the studies, stats...etc would like you to believe . Btw when I respectfully present my experience to my graduate professors I'm told that I'm either not qualified to have an opinion bc I don't have a PhD or I'm just wrong and told that My experiences don't happen. Meanwhile the professor who has spent 20 years doin nothing but teaching at a cushy elite college campus is right?

Sorry for my rant but I believe that in order to fix the problem it has to be correctly understood

 

[Emcee77]

Meh. He shouldn't get life, but I'm not going to give two shits about a drug dealer on this third offense. Personally, there are injustices in this world for good people (especially children) that are far more deserving for our sympathy/empathy/call-to-action than a convicted drug dealer. Call me callous, call me insensitive, call me maybe, but that's how I feel personally.



Hard core drug use has destroyed many more lives and many more families than drug sentencing. I worked in the inner city for almost 20 years, and while the war on drugs was a political joke, the drug users and the actions of the drug users and drug dealers destroyed more families than the war on drugs did.

I think that's a fair point that deserves to be taken seriously.

My boss came up in juvenile court and he wanted me and my co-workers to tour the local juvenile courts building to get a sense of what goes on there. One of the abuse-and-neglect judges I got a chance to speak with said something similar to what Hollywood posted. Basically, he said, there are a lot of people out there who want to legalize drugs and he understands all that, but he has a different perspective on the issue, because he has seen how drugs make people completely forget about their own children. And that's if the kids are almost lucky ... sometimes drugs turn parents into people who actively harm their own children.

Just fwiw. It definitely made me think twice about the issue.

 

[kmoose]

It's rather outrageous to make that assumption.

But you don't think it's outrageous to bring some nebulous chart about the "harm" of different drugs, based on information from the U.K., to a discussion about drug issues in America. Oh, and keep in mind that there is absolutely NO way for anyone here to see what criteria were used, to develop this "harm" chart.

 

[greyhammer90]

Meh. He shouldn't get life, but I'm not going to give two shits about a drug dealer on this third offense. Personally, there are injustices in this world for good people (especially children) that are far more deserving for our sympathy/empathy/call-to-action than a convicted drug dealer. Call me callous, call me insensitive, call me maybe, but that's how I feel personally.

He was in his early twenties and his two previous charges had landed him only probation. Think about the message that sends to him as a young kid. 1st time: Mild hand slap, don't do this, it's not that serious but don't do it ok? 2nd time: Caught you again, mild hand slap, don't do it, not very serious, nothing that can get you real time, but don't do it. 3rd time: You will never be a free man again, you will die in prison. Any time that something isn't murder or rape, and the first day you spend in jail is the beginning of a life sentence, something is wrong.

I also disagree with your concept of "good people" necessarily excluding any person with a drug charge on their record, but that's more of a personal, empathy thing.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Meh. He shouldn't get life, but I'm not going to give two shits about a drug dealer on this third offense. Personally, there are injustices in this world for good people (especially children) that are far more deserving for our sympathy/empathy/call-to-action than a convicted drug dealer. Call me callous, call me insensitive, call me maybe, but that's how I feel personally.

Is there are limit on how much sympathy/empathy we can have?

Hard core drug use has destroyed many more lives and many more families than drug sentencing. I worked in the inner city for almost 20 years, and while the war on drugs was a political joke, the drug users and the actions of the drug users and drug dealers destroyed more families than the war on drugs did.

You'd have to define what a hard core drug is. Meth? Heroin? Cocaine? Yep, in total agreement.

Alcoholism and just plain alcohol has destroyed many more lives and families than those combined.

I watched my father die when I was ten from decades of smoking cigarettes, does that count?

Show me some stats showing families being destroyed and millions of lives being ruined by substances like ecstacy/LSD/mushrooms.

 

[greyhammer90]

Is there are limit on how much sympathy/empathy we can have?

I actually thought about this after my response above. It's not like me being empathetic/outraged at the injustice here somehow means I can't give it to a kid who deserves it later. "Sorry kid, I already used up my sympathetic points today. Come back later."

 

[Buster Bluth]

But you don't think it's outrageous to bring some nebulous chart about the "harm" of different drugs, based on information from the U.K., to a discussion about drug issues in America. Oh, and keep in mind that there is absolutely NO way for anyone here to see what criteria were used, to develop this "harm" chart.

Those god damn English and their stupid drug research!!

Open up the ol' Google machine and see for yourself. The Swiss (Ew Europeans!) just concluded the first study of LSD in forty years, take a look.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Lol, why is Gattaca's assumption outrageous or stupid?

This guy appears to be a small time dealer, i.e. a low income individual. Low income individuals typically receive far more in government benefits than they pay in taxes. So, although his assumption may ultimately be wrong, but it is a very fair assumption without knowing the particulars.

So basically you don't know shit about the guy. Is that what I'm reading?

Does it conflict with your fantasies that small time dealers and users of hard drugs are just a bunch of wonderful, ordinary folks with good, steady jobs that, if not for the war on drugs, would all be model citizens?

I think it conflicts with your fantasies that most dealers walked straight out of The Wire. There are certainly plenty of bad people out there, and plenty of them sell drugs. But have a more sophisticated view of the matter and realize that there are thousands upon thousands of people out there who sell drugs to their group of friends/classmates/coworkers who don't fit into your stereotype at all. Speaking on the matter of cannabis, most of the good stuff is grown indoors in small amounts by people who learned how to do it via the internet...it's not always being shipped over the border from Mexican cartels armed with assault rifles.

 

[Buster Bluth]

You have your liberal opinion, I have mine.

Oh so it needs a label?

Also, you misread my post (first comment you made) and made assumptions that I want to give every first time dealer 10 years. Take a chill pill (or whatever substance you feel necessary).

Two years then. Is that better? Take an 18-year old guy and throw him in prison for two years because he is the guy his college classmates get their weed from....how is his life changed, and how the hell does that obvious result benefit society?

 

[IrishSteelhead]

No big deal, I'm sure he'll be able to scrounge up a hackey sack or frisbee in the joint, and still make tie-dye shirts during arts and crafts time....

 

[kmoose]

Those god damn English and their stupid drug research!!

Open up the ol' Google machine and see for yourself. The Swiss (Ew Europeans!) just concluded the first study of LSD in forty years, take a look.

You're the one trying to make a point. If you want to move people's opinions, then give them some facts. Then they can say, "After examining new evidence, I think maybe I have been wrongly looking at the situation." If you don't want to supply the evidence, then don't expect people to move their opinion.

 

[NDinL.A.]

I clearly stated 'personally'...twice.

If others want to have major sympathy towards him, have at it. I don't. I simply don't feel sorry for drug dealers....at all. They know the risks and they accept them. It's simply my own personal opinion.

 

[greyhammer90]

I clearly stated 'personally'...twice.

If others want to have major sympathy towards him, have at it. I don't. I simply don't feel sorry for drug dealers....at all. They know the risks and they accept them. It's simply my own personal opinion.

Ok? Can we discuss our personal opinions though? It is a discussion board.

Re: your point about knowing the risks, my point was that this kid couldn't have known the risks. It's not fathomable for an average person, who's only been given probation twice, to think "I'm going to get put in jail for the rest of my life if I get caught again." It's an unreasonable sentence that no 20-year kid with no knowledge of the law would ever think would be placed upon him.

 

[gkIrish]

Ok? Can we discuss our personal opinions though? It is a discussion board.

Re: your point about knowing the risks, my point was that this kid couldn't have known the risks. It's not fathomable for an average person, who's only been given probation twice, to think "I'm going to get put in jail for the rest of my life if I get caught again." It's an unreasonable sentence that no 20-year kid with no knowledge of the law would ever think would be placed upon him.

Wait a minute. I've never been convicted of a crime or been on probation but it seems to me that the judge and/or his probation officer and/or his lawyer likely made it clear to him what the possible penalty for a 3rd offense would be. Why are you giving him the benefit of the doubt?

In my court room experience the judge at sentencing almost always warns the convicted of the consequences of his next offense.

 

[GEORGIA DOMER]

Ok? Can we discuss our personal opinions though? It is a discussion board.

Re: your point about knowing the risks, my point was that this kid couldn't have known the risks. It's not fathomable for an average person, who's only been given probation twice, to think "I'm going to get put in jail for the rest of my life if I get caught again." It's an unreasonable sentence that no 20-year kid with no knowledge of the law would ever think would be placed upon him.

That's true as I comes. Would you put your child in timeout twice for something. Then kick the living shit out of him on the third go around? The progression of the punishment is silly. On top of that it's Lsd. COMEONMAN!

 

[koonja]

LOCK HIM THE FUCK UP!

Or, use the information on how harmful drugs are to make a reasonable decision:

"Don't drink beer, man. That stuff will mess with your mind".

 

[no.1IrishFan]

The thread title is a bit misleading. This young man did not get life for selling LSD. This young man got life for being a 3 time repeat offender and pleading guilty to a charge he should have pled not guilty to.

 

[Irish YJ]

Oh so it needs a label?




Two years then. Is that better? Take an 18-year old guy and throw him in prison for two years because he is the guy his college classmates get their weed from....how is his life changed, and how the hell does that obvious result benefit society?

OK, here's a label..... argumentative-my-opinion-is-the-only-one-that-matters-liberal-pinion.

I said giving to a friend should not be considered distribution....... If the guy has 100 hits however, he's not just giving it to a friend, and in that scenario I'm perfectly happy with him getting somewhere between 2 and 10 depending on the details. Also, I don't buy into the whole it's OK because it's this drug, not OK because it's that. I'm supportive of the legalization of pot, but if I go buy a pound, give a quarter to my friend, I know what the consequences are. If I'm stupid enough, or unlucky enough to get caught, I have no one else to blame but myself if I'm thrown into jail. If I had a 16 year old kid right now, I don't want one of his buddies "giving" him any drugs. There are lots of scenarios, and all should be considered. At the end of the day, if you decide to break the law knowing the consequences, can you really complain if you get busted. It's not like drugs are a requirement for healthy living. It's recreational. It's not like somebody outlawed water.

 

[magogian]

I'm a detective in one of the worst, if not the worst, cities in the country. I don't know about the LSD guys case but I do know a lot about drug distributing organizations, sentencing, and what REALLY destroys families with drug addicts.

1. You're missing the totality of what you read when you see a individual sentenced to 15-20 years for distribution. (Which rarely happens btw most 1-2nd offenders get months). A heroin, cocaine, crack, meth...etc distribution ring (even marijuana) almost always has homicides and other forms of sickening violence associated with it. Territory is at a premium and a lot of people die for it. Now the hard part in investigating is pinning bodies on 1 person with full proof evidence to convict. So the state uses drug sentencing laws as a way to stop the reign of terror that comes down on communities from these organizations.

2. Min sentencing requirements offer crucial leverage to compel cooperation. Without it my job becomes much more difficult.

3. Drug sentencing does not destroy families of drug addicts. What destroys families is the stealing, lying, failing out of rehab, disappearing for weeks at a time with the family not knowing if their loved one is dead or alive, and the cost that bankrupts families trying to get the addict help over the countless times he quits rehab, stops taking his medicine, and relapses. In fact, from my experience, most families prefer their addicted love one in jail bc they know they're alive and (supposedly) clean. Addicts have to want to get clean and by want they have to do more than talk about it. There's countless low cost programs available for addicts to help them and they quit the program. Sadly, after these battles that last 5-10-15 years the families are actually relieved and at peace bc they can move forward with their lives.

I know my opinion is not politically correct but the academics who have been in college for 20+ years need to get into the gutter and really open their eyes to what the issues actually are. Stats can be quoted endlessly but everyday I see a reality that doesn't quite add up to what the studies, stats...etc would like you to believe . Btw when I respectfully present my experience to my graduate professors I'm told that I'm either not qualified to have an opinion bc I don't have a PhD or I'm just wrong and told that My experiences don't happen. Meanwhile the professor who has spent 20 years doin nothing but teaching at a cushy elite college campus is right?

Sorry for my rant but I believe that in order to fix the problem it has to be correctly understood

Uh oh, this thread is over. Someone who actually knows what they are talking about is contributing.

 

[magogian]

Speaking on the matter of cannabis, most of the good stuff is grown indoors in small amounts by people who learned how to do it via the internet...it's not always being shipped over the border from Mexican cartels armed with assault rifles.

I think most would agree that cannabis is quite different than harder drugs and sentencing should reflect that (unless, of course, cannabis is legal). So, I don't think discussing cannabis gets us anywhere.

 

[magogian]

It's simply my own personal opinion.

Forum logic error. Personal opinions are never personal.

 

[Zwidmanio]

I'm a detective in one of the worst, if not the worst, cities in the country. I don't know about the LSD guys case but I do know a lot about drug distributing organizations, sentencing, and what REALLY destroys families with drug addicts.

1. You're missing the totality of what you read when you see a individual sentenced to 15-20 years for distribution. (Which rarely happens btw most 1-2nd offenders get months). A heroin, cocaine, crack, meth...etc distribution ring (even marijuana) almost always has homicides and other forms of sickening violence associated with it. Territory is at a premium and a lot of people die for it. Now the hard part in investigating is pinning bodies on 1 person with full proof evidence to convict. So the state uses drug sentencing laws as a way to stop the reign of terror that comes down on communities from these organizations.

2. Min sentencing requirements offer crucial leverage to compel cooperation. Without it my job becomes much more difficult.

3. Drug sentencing does not destroy families of drug addicts. What destroys families is the stealing, lying, failing out of rehab, disappearing for weeks at a time with the family not knowing if their loved one is dead or alive, and the cost that bankrupts families trying to get the addict help over the countless times he quits rehab, stops taking his medicine, and relapses. In fact, from my experience, most families prefer their addicted love one in jail bc they know they're alive and (supposedly) clean. Addicts have to want to get clean and by want they have to do more than talk about it. There's countless low cost programs available for addicts to help them and they quit the program. Sadly, after these battles that last 5-10-15 years the families are actually relieved and at peace bc they can move forward with their lives.

I know my opinion is not politically correct but the academics who have been in college for 20+ years need to get into the gutter and really open their eyes to what the issues actually are. Stats can be quoted endlessly but everyday I see a reality that doesn't quite add up to what the studies, stats...etc would like you to believe . Btw when I respectfully present my experience to my graduate professors I'm told that I'm either not qualified to have an opinion bc I don't have a PhD or I'm just wrong and told that My experiences don't happen. Meanwhile the professor who has spent 20 years doin nothing but teaching at a cushy elite college campus is right?

Sorry for my rant but I believe that in order to fix the problem it has to be correctly understood

I appreciate your perspective and thank you for a reasoned counterpoint. Sadly these discussions usually quickly devolve. As to your points one and three, don't you think that many of the factors that drive these issues have actually been created by the War on Drugs?

As to point one, if drugs were legalized they would be taken out of the black market and distributed by a legitimate store/entity. Violence created over corners would be pointless, at least in regards to drug turf. Turf wars would thus be more akin to CVS vs. Duane Reed.

As to point three, I think that a system that devoted its resources towards education and rehabilitation would be more successful than punitive measures, in particular with respect to drug users. I think that locking up drug users is probably counter-productive in that it criminalizes a serious health issue, which is of course on them...It is their fault that they went down that road. Nonetheless, just locking up a drug addict merely puts them into an environment that is not at all conducive to their recovery from addiction.

 

[greyhammer90]

Wait a minute. I've never been convicted of a crime or been on probation but it seems to me that the judge and/or his probation officer and/or his lawyer likely made it clear to him what the possible penalty for a 3rd offense would be. Why are you giving him the benefit of the doubt?

In my court room experience the judge at sentencing almost always warns the convicted of the consequences of his next offense.

I find it unlikely that he was properly informed because the first two times he was dealing with a regular "court date" in-and-out judge who deals only with California state law. Same with his probation officer, who probably only advised him on ramifications of California state law. But when he got picked up for the third time, BANG, federal department of justice supersedes on the normal California criminal justice system. Now he's in front of a federal judge dealing with mandatory federal sentencing guidelines.

 

[GoldenToTheGrave]

I had to look up qat. Never heard of it before.

It's a stimulant drug that was famously chewed by the militias that were responsible for the blackhawk down situation.

 

[gkIrish]

I find it unlikely that he was properly informed because the first two times he was dealing with a regular "court date" in-and-out judge who deals only with California state law. Same with his probation officer, who probably only advised him on ramifications of California state law. But when he got picked up for the third time, BANG, federal department of justice supersedes on the normal California criminal justice system. Now he's in front of a federal judge dealing with mandatory federal sentencing guidelines.

I understand your POV. I'm just not personally a fan of giving anyone a pass based on ignorance (of the law).

For the record, I think these sentencing laws are stupid but I don't really feel that bad for him.

 

[NDinL.A.]

Ok? Can we discuss our personal opinions though? It is a discussion board.

That was my whole point. I gave my opinion about personally not having sympathy for drug dealers, and 2 of you wondered why you couldn't have sympathy for more than one group of people. My point was YOU can, but this is a message board and I was just giving my take. Your take is different, and that's fine.

 

[greyhammer90]

I understand your POV. I'm just not personally a fan of giving anyone a pass based on ignorance (of the law).

For the record, I think these sentencing laws are stupid but I don't really feel that bad for him.

90% of the time I'm right there with you, but the main reason that principal exists is because the law should at least partially reflect a reasonable persons expectations. When it doesn't I have a problem.

 

[NDRock]

Not sure it was touched on but the chart being used in this post was created by a British psychiatrist named David Nutt. He also worked for the British government (Chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs) and was ultimately fired for criticizing the government's reclassification of marijuana from class C to class B.

He was on a recent podcast I listened to discussing what is more dangerous, alcohol or marijuana. It's by the guys who wrote Freakanomics and it's always prettying interesting. Here is the link if you're interested.

Freakonomics » What’s More Dangerous: Marijuana or Alcohol? A New Freakonomics Radio Podcast