Thread: Cocaine, Heroin, and the Federal Govt.

[quote name='nonsqtr' date='11 August 2009 - 09:05 PM' timestamp='1250042723' post='3483']

You didn't get it.



Okay, here - let me give you another version.



Have you ever read the Articles of Confederation? That was the first agreed-upon "version" of our United States Constitution.



Well, read the thing, and then go back and read this part again:







Are you getting it now? Maybe it'll take a minute to register....

[/quote]



We went back to the Articles of Confederation? Wow! I missed that memo. Anyway, what the hell does that have to do with substances which have been deemed illegal by the federal government? In the heirarchy of law it starts from federal and moves down to local, thus the federal crimes being committed should take precedence and should be enforced. My point is that they are not and that if they were the problems wouldn't even reach as low as the local level.

[quote name='bla bla' date='11 August 2009 - 09:30 PM' timestamp='1250044214' post='3491']

Plastic forks made in China are from outside the country too, if you gouge someones eye

out with one it doesn't make it a Federal crime.

[/quote]



I suppose if you smuggled in the forks illegally or failed to perform all the necessary customs procedures I'd agree. So long as plastic forks from China are imported legally then I don't see how you could make a federal claim. Whereas one cannot legally bring heroin or cocaine to the streets of America without first breaking a myriad of federal laws; then the federal government should do what it supposed to do and enforce the laws in which it created.

[quote name='nonsqtr' date='11 August 2009 - 09:48 PM' timestamp='1250045288' post='3499']

This is a strange, and strangely worded, question.



Like, first of all..... who cares? You sound almost like a police bureaucrat who's trying to recover some money from the federal government....



Are you?



Why else would you care about "recouping losses from the federal government"?

[/quote]



Evidently I care, or I was bored and was hoping someone else cared. I don't know any longer.



I am not a bureaucrat of any type, just a concerned taxpayer who doesn't like to see millions of state and local dollars being spent to house prisoners for people who clearly had to break federal laws.

[quote name='Dispondent' date='11 August 2009 - 11:02 PM' timestamp='1250046130' post='3506']

We went back to the Articles of Confederation? Wow! I missed that memo. Anyway, what the hell does that have to do with substances which have been deemed illegal by the federal government? In the heirarchy of law it starts from federal and moves down to local, thus the federal crimes being committed should take precedence and should be enforced. My point is that they are not and that if they were the problems wouldn't even reach as low as the local level.

[/quote]



Excuse me?



I mean, please excuse my uneducated self, but one thing I HAVE read is the Constitution of the United States, and it SPECIFICALLY says that there is no such legal hierarchy as the one you're referring to.



Seems to me, you've swallowed someone's bill of goods. Please be careful, lest you be mistaken for a Statist (boo-hiss).

[quote name='Dispondent' date='11 August 2009 - 11:09 PM' timestamp='1250046553' post='3513']

Evidently I care, or I was bored and was hoping someone else cared. I don't know any longer.



I am not a bureaucrat of any type, just a concerned taxpayer who doesn't like to see millions of state and local dollars being spent to house prisoners for people who clearly had to break federal laws.

[/quote]



I'm not sure I understand - what difference does it make if they're housed in federal prisons or state prisons?



Either way, it's YOUR tax dollars paying for it.



My understanding is that federal prisons are more expensive but state prisons are more crowded - so, where you rather put the cocaine and heroin types? In Allentown where they get to play golf every day, or in Lompoc where they gotta compete for TV time?



Nah, sorry, I don't mean to be facetious - look, the point I was trying to make is that there is a compartmentation of responsibilities when it comes to things like this. You are absolutely right that it's the Feds' job to protect our borders - and therefore, if stuff comes in that shouldn't be coming in, that means the Feds aren't doing their jobs!



But when a crime gets committed by someone in a particular jurisdiction, the FIRST charge that's filed is usually a local charge, which is usually sufficient to hold the person till the feds can figure out what to do with him. And, since federal prosecution is expensive ('cause there's LOTS of appeals layers in the federal system), they choose "not" to prosecute most crimes of this type, and leave it up to the State authorities, who are more than happy to comply because most of the attorneys are seeking political office and they need convictions like this under their belt.



Frankly, I don't see that cocaine or heroin are very big problems - their use has been declining steadily over the years (except for heroin which took a bump for a year or two, during Bushie's term - sorry couldn't resist) - but now that this year's heroin supply has completely disappeared inside Afghanistan, I rather doubt we'll be seeing very many heroin-related crimes. More likely we'll be seeing a surge in the access to free gubmint methadone.



Besides, drug offenders don't get jail time anymore, 'cause the county can't afford it. They get treatment, which works a lot better anyway. And for some of 'em, that's the very first time they find out that doing a crime "while" high, is much worse than just getting high.



My take is, they oughta let all the "simple possession" cases OUT of jail, right away. There's no point in keeping people locked up for 20 years for snorting a line of coke, that's just idiotic (your tax dollars at work). If they go in as a cokehead, they'll come out as a trained forger or demolitions expert or some such thing, 'cause the prison system breeds criminals faster than anywhere else!

[quote name='nonsqtr' date='12 August 2009 - 10:53 AM' timestamp='1250092435' post='3710']

I'm not sure I understand - what difference does it make if they're housed in federal prisons or state prisons?



Either way, it's YOUR tax dollars paying for it.



My understanding is that federal prisons are more expensive but state prisons are more crowded - so, where you rather put the cocaine and heroin types? In Allentown where they get to play golf every day, or in Lompoc where they gotta compete for TV time?



Nah, sorry, I don't mean to be facetious - look, the point I was trying to make is that there is a compartmentation of responsibilities when it comes to things like this. You are absolutely right that it's the Feds' job to protect our borders - and therefore, if stuff comes in that shouldn't be coming in, that means the Feds aren't doing their jobs!



But when a crime gets committed by someone in a particular jurisdiction, the FIRST charge that's filed is usually a local charge, which is usually sufficient to hold the person till the feds can figure out what to do with him. And, since federal prosecution is expensive ('cause there's LOTS of appeals layers in the federal system), they choose "not" to prosecute most crimes of this type, and leave it up to the State authorities, who are more than happy to comply because most of the attorneys are seeking political office and they need convictions like this under their belt.



Frankly, I don't see that cocaine or heroin are very big problems - their use has been declining steadily over the years (except for heroin which took a bump for a year or two, during Bushie's term - sorry couldn't resist) - but now that this year's heroin supply has completely disappeared inside Afghanistan, I rather doubt we'll be seeing very many heroin-related crimes. More likely we'll be seeing a surge in the access to free gubmint methadone.



Besides, drug offenders don't get jail time anymore, 'cause the county can't afford it. They get treatment, which works a lot better anyway. And for some of 'em, that's the very first time they find out that doing a crime "while" high, is much worse than just getting high.



My take is, they oughta let all the "simple possession" cases OUT of jail, right away. There's no point in keeping people locked up for 20 years for snorting a line of coke, that's just idiotic (your tax dollars at work). If they go in as a cokehead, they'll come out as a trained forger or demolitions expert or some such thing, 'cause the prison system breeds criminals faster than anywhere else!

[/quote]



The primary difference with the tax issue is federal prisons are paid for by a much larger tax pool. The primary point still remains; the federal government's failure to stop these substances from coming into the country allows for all the subsequent crimes to be committed. My view is that the federal government should take on a greater responsibility because of their previous failures.



Granted this issue is completely inconsequential, it was just something that popped in my head. Thanks for the discussion though, it was stimulating.