Joe Biden: The Architect of America’s Disastrous War on Drugs

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jkcerda, Apr 25, 2019.

  1. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #1
    https://fee.org/articles/joe-biden-...xPkVDh0kkyOlQEM6-qxbF-gQ63_wUzfIgPiUh1ZDrYhMU
    democrats, responsible for mass incarceration of minorities...........
     
  2. Chew Toy McCoy macrumors regular

    Chew Toy McCoy

    Joined:
    May 13, 2016
    #2
    So you are saying he should run as a Republican?
     
  3. lowendlinux, Apr 25, 2019
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2019

    lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #3
    The war on drugs started with Nixon..

    I have a feeling there's few politicians from the 80's and 90's that aren't guilty of the creep of that policy
     
  4. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #4
    I don't think a single republican holds a candle to the damage democrats have done to minorities :eek:
     
  5. raqball, Apr 25, 2019
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2019

    raqball macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2016
    #5
    Mass incarceration and mandatory minimum sentencing laws have destroyed innocent lives, torn apart families, and cost the American taxpayers $182 billion annually. The practice of civil asset forfeiture has allowed law enforcement to seize money and property from people who were neither charged with nor convicted of a crime. As a young US senator, Biden played a role in the creation and adoption of each of these policies.

    Drug laws have not destroyed innocent lives and torn apart families.. Those who broke them by importing, manufacturing and/or distributing illegal narcotics did...

    As far as asset seizure goes:

    https://www.dea.gov/dea-asset-forfeiture

    There was an OIG report that does lend credence to the claim made above:

    https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2017/e1702.pdf

    I will add this:

    When assets are seized notice is given on how to dispute its seizure. Many times, in the instance of cash seizures, the criminal wants no part in making a claim. Why? Buy money has serial numbers recorded. In the case of many seizures, the cash can be linked to undercover purchases via the serial numbers.

    I personally would not call the drug war disastrous.. I might be biased but I don't consider locking up felons who peddle their poison disastrous.
     
  6. tshrimp macrumors 6502

    tshrimp

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    #6
    I am not, and never will be for legalizing drugs due to my past, but as far as Biden for President. This video says it all.

    How to Train Your Biden
     
  7. Chew Toy McCoy macrumors regular

    Chew Toy McCoy

    Joined:
    May 13, 2016
    #7
    Just as troubling are Democrats ignorance or denial of that.

    I think part of the college or even high school US history experience should include a game where they are given a policy and have to guess who passed it and from what party. Ultimately they will see that Democrats aren’t always the champion of the poor, minorities, or working class beyond lip service, but also in the bigger picture they will see they are pretty much getting screwed by both sides.
     
  8. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Location:
    Velvet Green
    #8
    In other words, you are in favor of throwing money in the toilet along with that stash,

    "One primary reason for sentencing an offender to prison is deterrence … If imprisonment were an effective deterrent to drug use and crime, then … the extent to which a state sends drug offenders to prison should be correlated with certain drug-related problems in that state … states with higher rates of drug imprisonment would experience lower rates of drug use among their residents.

    "To test this, Pew compared state drug imprisonment rates with three important measures of drug problems … and found no statistically significant relationship … higher rates of drug imprisonment did not translate into lower rates of drug use, arrests, or overdose deaths.

    "State pairings offer illustrative examples. For instance, Tennessee imprisons drug offenders at more than three times the rate of New Jersey, but the states’ rates of self-reported drug use are virtually the same. Conversely, Indiana and Iowa have nearly identical rates of drug imprisonment, but Indiana ranks 27th among states in self-reported drug use and 18th in overdose deaths compared with 44th and 47th, respectively, for Iowa.

    "The results hold even when controlling for standard demographic variables …"

    Putting more drug-law violators behind bars for longer periods of time has generated enormous costs for taxpayers, but it has not yielded a convincing public safety return on those investments. Instead, more imprisonment for drug offenders has meant limited funds are siphoned away from programs, practices, and policies that have been proved to reduce drug use and crime.

    Nixon's effort to target blacks and hippies has resulted in enormous collateral damage across the country.
     
  9. tshrimp macrumors 6502

    tshrimp

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    #9
    They knew penalty, so have only themselves blame. What all drugs are you for legalizing?
     
  10. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Location:
    Velvet Green
    #10
    The Portugal model seems like a good starting point. Punishing people for getting high accomplishes nothing, nor does finger-pointing. Unregulated sale of recreational substances should be a crime, but making illegal dealers the only avenue for obtaining stuff only leads users into crimeworld, where they lose respect to law and society.

    Quite frankly, “criminal justice” is simply not working. Throwing people in prison works fine for when you have impugned the character of the king or been found to be a witch, but in modern, free society, it has no value as a social curative and, in fact, makes society worse off. We need to address our real, underlying problems in a meaningful way rather than relying on midæval hold-overs.
     
  11. A.Goldberg macrumors 68020

    A.Goldberg

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Location:
    Boston
    #11
    I agree that the legal system has largely been ineffective at dealing with drug problems. I don't think legalization is the answer, treatment is. But I'm not sure criminal charges should be out of the question for dealers and traffickers who have failed to respond to non-punitive interventions or people who don't want treatment. The disadvantage of mandating people into treatment who don't willingly want to be there on any level is they can hurt the experience of people who actually do want to be there.

    The Portugal example was touted as a success very shortly after it was instituted and it has since been used by legalization and decriminalization proponents, not to mention the Portuguese government, as universally successful and proof of concept. That's really not the case and the situation is a far more complex. The often cited Cato report that praises the policy is extremely flawed. It doesn't take into consider things like statistical significance, trends prior to decriminalization, etc and from a scientific standpoint it makes claims it can't back up. A lot of negative findings go unreported.

    Prevention and treatment are the best way to deal with drug use and addiction issues. Until our government decides to cough up the money for treatment these problems will persist. Drug treatment is expensive, has poor outcomes, insurance doesn't like to pay for it, and lacks the infrastructure we need.
     
  12. pshufd, Apr 26, 2019
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2019

    pshufd macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    #12
    My state has or had the highest rates of drug deaths in the country. It not only affects the user, but the user's family, motorists, and everyone else due to the crime that fuels the drug trade and the impairment while driving or working. There are a few things that the state has done to reduce the number of deaths but dealing with the underlying addiction is very difficult. It is akin to dealing with someone in your family with mental illness.

    You have to have some level of enforcement of drug laws just to prevent the users and dealers from damaging society at high levels. Some countries have a simpler policy. I could see even harsher laws for dealers. Like mandatory death sentence.
    --- Post Merged, Apr 26, 2019 ---
    Which countries are drug-free and which approaches do they take to get there?
     
  13. DearthnVader macrumors 6502a

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #13
    The government has no power to tell people what they can and can't put into their own bodies.

    Think about it this way, the federal government needed an amendment to outlaw alcohol, because it had no power to outlaw it, it was a right of the people to decide if they wanted to drink it, make it, and sell it.

    So, I ask you, where in the Constitution does the federal government draw it's power to outlaw drugs?

    It's not there, it never was, the federal government has no such power, because it is the right of the people themselves to decide if they want to take, make, or sell drugs.

    Furthermore, by outlawing drugs the government has abdicated it's responsibility to regulate them to ensure they are pure of harmful additives, as reasonably safe as they can be made, and when and where they can be produced to ensure public safety from their manufacture.

    Just because something is a right, doesn't mean government can't pass reasonable legislation about it to ensure public safety, and general public health.

    I blame the anti-drug people, some of them in this very thread, they are power drunk, they think they can tell their fellow man what they can and can't put into their own bodies. Trampling on the rights of other people is fun, until they start trampling back.

    I don't need you to tell me what to do, and neither does anyone else, if I wanted to do crack, it wouldn't take me 15 min. to find some, but who the hell knows what it's made with, I'm not putting that **** into my body, but no law passed as yet has stopped anyone from finding whatever drug they desire.
     
  14. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #14
    mandated vaccines.........
     
  15. pshufd macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    #15
    Compulsory schooling.
     
  16. DearthnVader, Apr 26, 2019
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2019

    DearthnVader macrumors 6502a

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #16
    People can opt out of vaccines, tho it's not wise.......
    --- Post Merged, Apr 26, 2019 ---
    There is no federal law requiring schooling, it's state and local laws, but you can "home school".

    I was home schooled, thus I'm not a cookie cutter moron. I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but my thoughts and ideas are my own, I don't need any news agency or government policy to tell me what to think.

    Further, I know that Compulsory schooling is tantamount to slavery, you are forced to be there, and do work, yet you do not get paid. After about 13 or 14 years of this, you are so programed to do it, that many people pay great sums of money for a "higher education".
     
  17. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #17
    no vaccines, no school and your taxes paid for that.....
     
  18. pshufd macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    #18
    In 1852, Massachusetts was the first U.S. state to pass a contemporary universal public education law. In particular, the Massachusetts General Court required every town to create and operate a grammar school. Fines were imposed on parents who did not send their children to school, and the government took the power to take children away from their parents and apprentice them to others if government officials decided that the parents were "unfit to have the children educated properly".[24]

    The spread of compulsory attendance in the Massachusetts tradition throughout the U.S., especially for Native Americans, has been credited to General Richard Henry Pratt.[25] Pratt used techniques developed on Native Americans in a prisoner of war camp in Fort Marion, Augustine, Florida, to force demographic minorities across America into government schools.[25] His prototype was the Carlisle Indian Industrial School in Pennsylvania.

    In 1918, Mississippi was the last state to enact a compulsory attendance law.[26]

    In 1922 an attempt was made by the voters of Oregon to enact the Oregon Compulsory Education Act, which would require all children between the ages of 8 and 16 to attend State School, only leaving exceptions for mentally or physically unfit children, exceeding a certain living distance from a state school, or having written consent from a county superintendent to receive private instruction.[27] The law was passed by popular vote but was later ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, determining that "a child is not a mere creature of the state". This case settled the dispute about whether or not private schools had the right to do business and educate within the United States.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_education
     
  19. NT1440 macrumors G5

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #19
    If he was going to be honest about himself...he should.

    Centrist Dems of 2019 basically took over the space the GOP of the 90’s vacated as they ran head on into crazy town on the far right.
     
  20. Rogifan macrumors Core

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #20
    I’ll be curious to see if Biden defends the 1993 crime bill or not. And believe me he will get asked about it.
     
  21. pshufd macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    #21
    After the Biden-Cheney debate, many thought that they should both be on the top of their tickets.
     
  22. NT1440 macrumors G5

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #22
    Well, Biden does flirt the line of being a neoconservative when it comes to foreign policy so...
     
  23. pshufd macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    #23
    I think that President Obama looks like a neoconservative compared to most running.
     
  24. Chew Toy McCoy macrumors regular

    Chew Toy McCoy

    Joined:
    May 13, 2016
    #24
    I’ve heard a soundbite of Obama saying if you look at his polices and it was the 80’s he’d be considered a Republican. I’m not sure what the context was but I’m sure it was probably in response to outcry perception that liberal policies were taking over or ruining the country.
     
  25. ronntaylor macrumors regular

    ronntaylor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2004
    Location:
    Flushing, New York
    #25
    The War on Drugs and Crime has bipartisan architects, with foundations built by Republicans Nixon and Reagan. In fact, Clinton and Biden tried to outdo the GOP and show that they could be just as tough on crime.

    Joe Biden’s long record supporting the war on drugs and mass incarceration, explained
    Biden was a major Democratic leader in spearheading America’s war on drugs during the 1980s and ’90s.


    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...minal-justice-war-on-drugs-mass-incarceration

    During the 1980s and ’90s, America was in the middle of a crack epidemic and a huge crime wave. In response to this, Republicans and Democrats competed to look "tough on crime"— enacting incredibly punitive policies at all levels of government that focused, in large part, on imprisoning as many people as possible. On the Republican side, these efforts were led by Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. But on the Democratic side, Biden, as head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was a major leader in these efforts.

    He clashed with Bush throughout the late 1980s and early ’90s about crime and drugs — Bush would put out a proposal and Biden would try to go further. During a debate over a bill in 1991 (that would eventually become the 1994 crime law), Biden argued his plan was "much tougher than the president’s" and "provides for more penalties for death for more offenses than the [president’s] bill.” In response to Republican criticisms that his bill protected criminals, Biden claimed that “we do everything but hang people for jaywalking."

    Action to correct this overreach has mostly been a Democratic/Progressive effort with many Republicans deriding efforts at prison reform until relatively lately.
     

Share This Page

25 April 25, 2019