cannabisnews.com: Weaker Drug Penalties Bad Idea For Michigan





Weaker Drug Penalties Bad Idea For Michigan
Posted by FoM on December 10, 2000 at 08:36:42 PT
Editorial
Source: Flint Journal 
A carefully crafted message that encourages liberalized drug laws is reported to be working its way to Michigan. Let no one be misled by this propaganda. Michigan does have tough drug laws, but they are not excessive.The exception might be an old law that made a life sentence mandatory for anyone convicted of possession with intent to deliver more than 650 grams - about 1.4 pounds - of cocaine or heroin. But in 1998, the mandatory minimum was reduced 15 to 20 years.
While that is no light sentence, it must be considered in the context that 650 grams would entail someone selling drugs. Even with that judges can depart from the mandatory limit for a compelling reason, and some exercise that discretion. There is no reason to weaken drug laws any further.The push to do so would come in the aftermath of a California ballot proposal that passed last month. Sixty-one percent of voters favored requiring treatment rather than incarceration for first- and second-time drug offenders.That might be the best option in many cases, but judges ought to have discretion, and not be subject to a blanket dictum of voters ruling out consideration of individual circumstances.The victorious billionaire backers of the California initiative like the idea of moving on to Michigan and Ohio, where drug laws are strict and ballot initiatives common. University of Phoenix founder John Sperling, New York philanthropist George Soros and Ohio insurance executive Peter Lewis hope to work through the Michigan chapter of Families Against Mandatory Minimums serving as a their front group.Michigan residents who might be tempted by their message should realize judges here rarely incarcerate people for drug possession; that penalty is meted out almost exclusively to dealers.They should also bear in mind that most house burglaries and violent crimes are compelled by the drug trade. When life gets ugly on the streets, drugs are the reason. The false message spreading from California would only make it uglier. Source: Flint Journal (MI)Published: December 4, 2000Contact: letters FlintJ.comAddress: 200 E. First St., Flint, MI 48502Fax: (810) 767-7518Feedback: http://www.flintjournal.com/emaileditor/Website: http://fl.mlive.com/flintj/buffer.ssfRelated Article & Web Site:Families Against Mandatory Minimumshttp://www.famm.org/Billionaires To Push National Drug Reform Debatehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread7606.shtml
END SNIP -->
Snipped
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #8 posted by Ender Oats on August 09, 2001 at 12:41:25 PT:
The War We Fight
  This simple and straightforward issue has been made ridiculously complicated by people who have nothing better to do than attempt to force people to live in one exact way.It is NOT a war on drugs; it IS a war on personal freedom.  The use of drugs itself does not, in any conceivable fashion, harm or interfere with anyone other than the user. Granted, idiotic people may be slightly influenced by drugs, causing them to commit violent crimes. This is where the confusion arrises. It is not the fault of the drugs themselves, it is the fault of the fools that cannot handle themselves. While we're at it, here is a list of things that cause people to harm others which, following the same (il)logic of drug laws, should be criminalized as well:  1) anger  2) money  3) religion  4) jealousy  ........The list goes on, but I am sure that you get the point.  Especially in the issue of marijuana, where the government has declared a plant, created by nature itself, unfit for human possession, these laws are wrong. I don't think I need to explain the absurdity in throwing people in jail for having something that grows naturally, and will be here long after we are extinct. Who exactly do these people think they are?  Whether or not a person chooses to use drugs is a personal choice. Once a government begins controlling the personal choices of individuals and attempting to force the public into following one moral standard, something must be done. The voices speaking for freedom are getting louder and, if we continue to fight this war for human rights, we will be heard, and we can win. We must stay focused.--The Voice of Reason
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by freedom fighter on December 10, 2000 at 23:12:08 PT
I feel for you Josh!
No kid need to be a stupid snitch to get shot in the back.They know it was never about drugs too!Josh, I just think that people like i-rule, ripper, dddd and many others as well as you, will overcome this war. We will win this war. It will not be a perfect war where guys in white wins and the guys in black lose but everyone will come to a compromise what will stop this inane war that is killing human beings for nothing.Truth comes from people like you and it does fill my heart as well as many others. I am proud to be your freedom fighter! 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by Josh on December 10, 2000 at 21:42:24 PT:
what?!
YO,to the dude that wrote this:DRUGS ain't the reason I live in crip territory,and had my neighbors shot up by somebody; it's the drug LAWS that the inact that have caused this; to u and ur anti-drug law support: thank you for making ten years of my childhood somethin WORTHWHILE; I hope to god you people have a heart,so MY kids don't have to live the life I had.                     Josh
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by dddd on December 10, 2000 at 18:45:32 PT
dictum?
 One of the more stunningly idiotic statement in this article is;"That might be the best option in many cases, but judges ought to have discretion, and not be subject to a blanket dictum ofvoters ruling out consideration of individual circumstances." What about the fact that judges already have a "blanket dictum" from the government,in the form of mandatory minimums? "...blanket dictum of voters..."???This excerpt is just begging to be ridiculed,,I'll spare you. J.R Dobbs mentions one of my favorite points about "billionaire backers";>"Funny, they always mention the billionaire backers of these things, but never point out the trillionaire who fights the otherside - our own Uncle Sam, fighting our best interests with our own money.Right on Mr Dobbs 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by i_rule_ on December 10, 2000 at 17:37:32 PT
Amen, ripper.
Whatever he is smoking, it ain't pot. Sounds like a big spliff of McCaffrey's caca. People with no hearts cannot hear the truth. While our freedomfighter has no hearing, his heart is filled with truth. Good luck to you freedomfighter. The only thing ugly about life is the filthy lies spewing from the mouths of these heartless naysayers. But the tide is turning. Truth is cutting these heartless bums to shreds. These lies are just the sounds these kind make as they die. We are winning this war. With Truth.Peace 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by ripper on December 10, 2000 at 12:57:28 PT
Whats this guy smoking?
 The truth hurts this type of person. Legal weed would put most of these drug warriors out of buisness. No more free money. They are the worst kind of scum. Lie for profit. Big Money=Big Lies. Like all propaganda this lie above is way out there. Not even close to the truth. They should also bear in mind that most house burglaries and violent crimes are compelled by the drug trade. When life getsugly on the streets, "drug laws are the reason". The false message spreading from the "DEA" will only make it uglier. I think what this person needs is his or her door kicked in by the jack boot thugs, convicted and jailed on hearsay then locked away for 15 to 20 for the outrages lies this person has told. The sound of our fore fathers rolling in their graves is getting so loud they may have to put up sound walls around the cemetary. Let no one be misled by this propaganda. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by military officer guy on December 10, 2000 at 10:54:22 PT
j.r. bob dobbs
couldn't have said it better myself...black market, bad...regulated, good...we can win this war...
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by J.R. Bob Dobbs on December 10, 2000 at 09:19:25 PT
Roger & Me
>> The victorious billionaire backers of the California initiative like the idea of moving on to Michigan and Ohio, where drug laws are strict and ballot initiatives common. University of Phoenix founder John Sperling, New York philanthropist George Soros and Ohio insurance executive Peter Lewis hope to work through the Michigan chapter of Families Against Mandatory Minimums serving as a their front group.  Funny, they always mention the billionaire backers of these things, but never point out the trillionaire who fights the other side - our own Uncle Sam, fighting our best interests with our own money.>>Michigan residents who might be tempted by their message should realize judges here rarely incarcerate people for drug possession; that penalty is meted out almost exclusively to dealers.  And how exactly are we supposed to POSESS it if we can't BUY it? Weird.>>They should also bear in mind that most house burglaries and violent crimes are compelled by the drug trade. When life gets ugly on the streets, drugs are the reason. The false message spreading from California would only make it uglier.  When's the last time somebody got gunned down in Michigan because they were trying to buy a bottle of alcohol and the deal went bad? Are the alcohol and tobacco gangs making the streets of Flint unsafe? Wake up!! It's the black market we need to get rid of, not the products themselves - which we can't seem to get rid of anyway.
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: