# sensenbrenner=idiot/moron



## rap (Mar 26, 2002)

is america ever going to use sense in determining drug policies? child rapists seem to get off easier than someone picked up with drugs.... our prisons are already overflowing with most the prisoners being held on drug charges...
---------
Spy vs. Spy

By Bill Piper, AlterNet. Posted May 18, 2005.

Neighbors spying on neighbors? Mothers forced to turn in their sons or daughters? These are images straight out of George Orwell's 1984, or a remote totalitarian state. We don't associate them with the land of the free and the home of the brave, but that doesn't mean they couldn't happen here. A senior congressman, James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), is working quietly but efficiently to turn the entire United States population into informants--by force.

Sensenbrenner, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee Chairman, has introduced legislation that would essentially draft every American into the war on drugs. H.R. 1528, cynically named "Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act," would compel people to spy on their family members and neighbors, and even go undercover and wear a wire if needed. If a person resisted, he or she would face mandatory incarceration.

Here's how the "spy" section of the legislation works: If you "witness" certain drug offenses taking place or "learn" about them, you must report the offenses to law enforcement within 24 hours and provide "full assistance in the investigation, apprehension and prosecution" of the people involved. Failure to do so would be a crime punishable by a mandatory minimum two-year prison sentence, and a maximum sentence of 10 years.

Here are some examples of offenses you would have to report to police within 24 hours:

You find out that your brother, who has children, recently bought a small amount of marijuana to share with his wife; 
You discover that your son gave his college roommate a marijuana joint; 
You learn that your daughter asked her boyfriend to find her some drugs, even though they're both in treatment.

In each of these cases you would have to report the relative to the police within 24 hours. Taking time to talk to your relative about treatment instead of calling the police immediately could land you in jail.

In addition to turning family member against family member, the legislation could also put many Americans in danger by forcing them to go undercover to gain evidence against strangers.

Even if the language that forces every American to become a de facto law enforcement agent is taken out, the bill would still impose draconian sentences on college students, mothers, people in drug treatment and others with substance abuse problems. If enacted, this bill will destroy lives, break up families, and waste millions of taxpayer dollars.

Despite growing opposition to mandatory minimum sentences from civil rights groups to U.S. Supreme Court Justices, the bill eliminates federal judges' ability to give sentences below the minimum recommended by federal sentencing guidelines. This creates a mandatory minimum sentence for all federal offenses, drug-related or not.

H.R. 1528 also establishes new draconian penalties for a variety of non-violent drug offenses, including:

Five years for anyone who passes a marijuana joint at a party to someone who, at some point in his or her life, has been in drug treatment; 
Ten years for mothers with substance abuse problems who commit certain drug offenses at home (even if their children are not at home at the time); 
Five years for any person with substance abuse problems who begs a friend in drug treatment to find them some drugs.

These sentences would put non-violent drug offenders behind bars for as long as rapists, and they include none of the drug treatment touted in the bill's name.

At a time when everyone from the conservative American Enterprise Institute to the liberal Sentencing Project is slamming the war on drugs as an abject failure, Sensenbrenner is trying to escalate it, and to force all Americans to become its foot soldiers. Instead of enacting new mandatory minimums, federal policymakers should look toward the states. A growing number have reformed their drug sentencing laws, including Arizona, California, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, New Mexico, New York and Texas, and they have proved it is possible to both save money and improve public safety.

Simply put, there is no way H.R. 1528 can be fixed. The only policy proposal in recent years that comes close to being as totalitarian as this bill is Operations TIPS, the Ashcroft initiative that would have encouraged -- but not required -- citizens to spy on one another. Congress rightfully rejected that initiative and they should do the same with H.R. 1528. Big Brother has no business here in America.

Bill Piper is director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

So much for the argument that Republicans are the party of small government....


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

the republicans are a joke, a bad one. :eyeroll:

If I found out my brother had a joint I'd tell him I'd tell on him if he wouldn't share it :lol:


----------



## rap (Mar 26, 2002)

:rollin:


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

You people are getting excited over nothing. It is one bill, by one person with zero cosponsors. These things pop up every day by both sides. What one nut does in either party does not represent that party but the news media loves you guys that get all excited.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Rap would you mind posting the text and draft of this legislation. Since I could not find anything remotely close to the opinion listed by you!

In know way do I agree with forced jail time for non cooperation, one needs to realize the drugs are part of the terrorist funding mechanism and the news reports across ND the last 6 moths really should wake everyone up to the fact that meth is becoming as big a threat to all of us as the terrorists.

Since we keep talking about all of the people doing time for drugs, I ask what should they be doing? Since we all know that addiction treatment can only start when the addict wants help.

I worked in a setting where a lot of people where given a chance to work out of prison or from a half way house. As soon as probation was over most where right back doing drugs. Most where also back in prison within a year or two. At least when they where locked up they where not stealing from people or assaulting them or worse.

The other thing I saw a lot of was the enabler. Parents or their partners allowing this to go on simply because they did not want them to go back to jail.

We have a mother who lied about where her son was and is sitting in jail still protecting him. But who is protecting us from him? I bet each one of us can look around and find a friend or acquaintance from our past that is now a drug addict, who has stolen from friends, or assaulted someone in an attempt to feed the addiction. I will bet that they all had numerous run ins with law enforcement and where allowed a chance to clean up. Yet they did not nor is it likely they will. What is the best place for that person for societies safety.

Is it in and out of a treatment program where they are allowed to drive, steal and assault people, or is it doing time and maybe getting the message that they need to stop doing what they do unless they want to end up behind bars again!

Doing drugs is a choice, enabling someone to do drugs is also a choice. Both have long reaching consequences that affect public safety and overall welfare! Not doing something even if it is a family member is as wrong!


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

legalize drugs, make them so cheap the profit is no longer there to attract the criminal element or cause addicts to commit crime to aquire them and spend all the money we now spend incarcerating non-violent drug users for treatment centers to help them. If they don't want help and are adults give them to them for free so they don't have to kill us for our wallet in some alley so they can buy the drugs which are now expensive purely due to the current policy. A policy that has been ineffective for the last forty years I might add.


----------



## rap (Mar 26, 2002)

long and confusing, but here it is.. i learned about this watching two sides debate this on foxnews last night... as for not doing anything, where has minimum mandatory sentences and strict policies brought us?? more users and jails overflowing, something obviously isn't working... i do know one thing that would help, a working immigration policy, but apparently our govt doesn't care about illegal immigration and border policy.
http://www.november.org/parole/Proposal ... hr%201528'


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> If they don't want help and are adults give them to them for free


Oh, that's a great idea........... gonna pay their cab fair down to the free drug give away clinic also or maybe just give them a free car so they don't have to walk. Hell might as well throw in a couple free hookers so they can have a real party.........


----------



## ej4prmc (Dec 3, 2004)

Ron Gilmore said:


> In know way do I agree with forced jail time for non cooperation, one needs to realize the drugs are part of the terrorist funding mechanism and the news reports across ND the last 6 moths really should wake everyone up to the fact that meth is becoming as big a threat to all of us as the terrorists.


I have a problem with the way the law enforcement is BRAINWASHING people about meth. It is NOT avilable a easily as they want you to believe. It may be if you are running with that type of crowd, but not to the everyday average joe. And if you are running with that type of crowd, meth is only one of your problems! I am ****** off that I can't go to a store and BUY OVER THE COUNTER MEDICINE WITH OUT AN I.D. yet I can pick up med. from the phar. without a I.D. Makes sense to me. over the counter med=ID, Prescribtion med no ID! :******: Law enforcement should be going around and talking to the stores that sell meth making things and ask THEM to work with them not FORCING their way into MY MEDICINE CABINET! I would love to Debate anyone on this issue when I don't have to type all my words!


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Gohon drugs are very cheap only illegality drives up their price, taxpayers would pay far less to provide drugs to addicts than they do now fighting all the crime that is a result of the high price. Taking the money out of them eliminates the criminal incentive and free ditribution to addicts would allow contact with them and possible counseling opportunities to get people off them.

Or we could just keep on with the same thing we've been doing for the last forty years which *doesn't* work *hasn't* worked and *will not work* but costs us a fortune every year :eyeroll:


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

ej4prmc I would disagree on the severity of the issue. I do not run in that crowd, but I see its affects daily. The availability in your area may not be easy, but it is in other regions.

I would have a hard time simply buying a gun that would not be traced to me or someone else legitimate here in Fargo. It would take a lot of time. Yet I know that I can go into a few places in the Cities and also Chicago and have pretty much what I want if I have the cash. That is the same thing with meth. The larger the city the easier it is to access. The harder it is for the cops to stop it.

To Bob on legalization. Do we make any and all drugs available both prescription and illegal? Should we have a corner heroin store or one that is run by our state or government?

Do we allow the RAPE DATE DRUG to be sold at the corner White Drug ?

Your blanket statement is not in line with your usual common sense posts!

I do not disagree about the failed policy, but making these type of drugs available that easily means that even more young people will die from them both directly and indirectly. I once held a similar position until I started seeing the dept of destruction that they cause.

I attended the funeral of a 14 boy who died from this stuff. A tweaker hit him on his bike on purpose. Thought the boys bat bag and dark baseball uniform was a ****! he later told the court! I do not want that type of drug simply available on any street corner with my governments stamp on it!


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Bob, you keep making that same claim over and over but there is no proof or documentation that type of approach has worked in any country that has tried it. Do you really think the day drugs become legal that the number of addicts will stop at some magic number and we can work on those people or do you think it is possible the number of addicts will start to increase. Personally I suspect it is the latter. Maybe the policy today is not working and needs to be adjusted or tweaked but making the drugs legal certainly isn't the answer. Actually, in all reality today's policies might be working.......especially if compared to no drug laws. Just seems to me your main complaint is saving money and not stopping drug use. I just saw a study recently that showed pot is no longer the drug of choice by high school kids but that meth had replaced it.................do we want the government to start producing meth and handing it out??????


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> I just saw a study recently that showed pot is no longer the drug of choice by high school kids but that meth had replaced it.................do we want the government to start producing meth and handing it out??????


Ron and Gohon I've made the argument over and over that I'm in favor of legalizing pot and making it the drug of choice for adult drug users because its the least harmful of the drugs out there. Do this by making it really cheap free if necessary and even drug users will make the logical choice get high on pot for free with no legal consequence or get high on heroin with stiff fines and high prices what would most choose??????? I'm not and never have been in favor of legalizing hard drugs. Meth has become a drug widely used because of profit motive and ease of manufacture.



> Just seems to me your main complaint is saving money and not stopping drug use.


 Gohon you always say I mean this every time we discuss drugs, my complaint is not saving money its throwing away money on a failed program. Spend the money on trying to rehabilitate not incarcerate ( Yikes! sounds kinda like Jesse Jackson :lol: ).

Ron, at least you rocognize that the present policies are not working Gohon drugs are rampant in our society and the current policy has not made them hard to obtain. And all the crimes assualts, burglaries, robberies, turf battles, on and on associated with the drug issue is a result of the fact that they are illegal. Take the criminal element out of it and then start rehabilitating these poor souls.

I am against drug use for minors. In fact I'm against drug use of any kind period I don't drink, not one drop ever, I don't smoke, I exercise regularly, I eat good foods, and I take a wide variety of vitamins and nutritional supplements. I was life long weight lifter( 500lb bench press 960lb dead lift, 600lb squats and runner( 3 miles daily 18 minutes) for most of my life, until injuries made me quit both. I still walk 4-6 miles per day on average and do at least 1000 pushups per week at 53 years of age does that sound like the kind of person that would advocate drug use to anyone.

Smoking pot is bad, bad alchohol is worse, and cigarrettes kill more people that both of them and all other hard drugs combined, but they are all realities of society yet we manage two of them and just goes nuts over the third one I'l never understand that. It really doesn't make any more sense to throw someone in jail for smoking pot than it would for them drinking some beers, its arbitrary to say the least. I would love to hear either one of you justify why its legal to screw your brain up drinking a fluid and not legal for you to do the same thing inhaling a hot gas. And I truly believe its driven by profit motive with the alchohol lobby, what other explanation can there be for such an illogical position.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> I would love to hear either one of you justify why its legal to screw your brain up drinking a fluid and not legal for you to do the same thing inhaling a hot gas


It's very simple........... alcohol is still considered a social beverage. You can drink one or two and sometimes three drinks during the course of dinner and it does not screw up your brain. Alcohol for the most part is made for taste and to enhance the flavor of some foods. Again it is a social recreation. Those that continue to drink after that are abusing alcohol and that is a completely different subject. Smoke one joint and your brain is messed up. The only reason to smoke pot is to alter your brain, period. Having said that I also do drink any type of alcohol beverage. BTW, I thought most states treat just smoking marijuana as a misdemeanor with a small fine. It takes more than smoking the stuff to send you to prison..


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I'm sorry but your just plain wrong, people drink to get high. That "I just drink socially" line is plain BS in all but maybe 2% of drinkers.

There are thousands of people in this country in prison for smoking pot.

Under the laws of fifteen states, you can get a life sentence for a nonviolent marijuana offense. And the average sentence for a convicted murder in this country is about six years. In the state of California, the average prison sentence for a convicted killer is about 3.3 years. So that enormous discrepancy between how violent crimes tend to be treated and how some nonviolent drug crimes are treated points to a very irrational impulse in this country to punish when it comes to marijuana.

In terms of the discrepancies between marijuana laws in different states--most people don't realize that the drug laws of this state operate at the federal, local and state level so you can be charged under any one of those three types of laws for a marijuana crime. And the punishment that you're going to receive for the same crime can vary enormously depending upon what state you're in and who decided to prosecute you.

For example, in Montana you can get a life sentence for a first offense for growing one marijuana plant. In New Mexico, which is not far away, you can be growing ten thousand marijuana plants for a first offense and get a punishment of no more than three years. Under federal law, you can get the death sentence for a first-time marijuana offense even if there's no violence involved. Anyone who's caught with 60,000 plants, which seems like a lot of pot, but if you're the person driving the truck for that conspiracy you may not be the kingpin but you can be given the death sentence under federal law.

The actual properties of the drug really did not help explain the crusade against it. About 100 years ago, the British colonial administrators of India became concerned with how much their ******* were smoking marijuana and conducted a fairly intensive study of marijuana. And they released what was called the British Hemp Commission Report in 1894 that found that *marijuana was relatively harmless,* but that the chief physiological ailment it caused was bronchitis and a higher incidence of upper respiratory ailments from inhaling the smoke.

And after a hundred years of scientific studies that have cost millions to conduct, modern science has basically come to the same conclusion. And last year the *British Medical Journal, The Lancet declared that smoking cannabis, even long-term, is not harmful to health.* Now, it is a very strong intoxicant and *there are all kinds of reasons however why young people shouldn't be smoking pot.*

But given that hundreds of people died every year in this country from non-prescription medicines, like aspirin and various antihistamines, and given that an estimated 300,000 die from tobacco and over 100,000 from alcohol, it clearly seemed to me that a concern for public health was not behind these strict punishments for marijuana.

On the contrary, at a time when AIDS patients and cancer patients and epileptics and people with multiple sclerosis have all been sent to prison for using marijuana as medicine, it really seemed like the war on marijuana fit into what has been called the paranoid style of American politics. The need to look for internal enemies and scapegoats.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Gohon in your state in case your interested
Possession of any amount of marijuana is punishable by up to one year in jail for the first offense and 2 - 10 years in prison for subsequent offenses. Conditional discharge is available to first time offenders.

Cultivation of 1,000 plants or less is punishable by 2 years - life in prison and a fine up to $20,000. Cultivation of greater than 1,000 plants is punishable by 20 years - life in prison and a fine up to $50,000.

Sale or delivery of less than 25 pounds is punishable by 2 years - life in prison and a fine of $20,000. For sale or delivery of 25 pounds or more the penalties increase to 4 years - life in prison and a fine of $25,000 - $100,000. Sale or delivery of 1,000 pounds or more is also punishable by 4 years - life in prison, but the fine increases to $100,000 - $500,000. Any sale to a minor doubles the penalties. Sale within 2,000 feet of schools, public parks or public housing doubles the available penalties and carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 50% of the imposed sentence.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> I'm sorry but your just plain wrong, people drink to get high. That "I just drink socially" line is plain BS in all but maybe 2% of drinkers


.

Oh BS......... now you're blowing smoke up my *** just to try to make yourself look correct. I know many people that will sit around and have a couple beers between supper and bed time, or maybe when visiting each other and they are not trying to get high as you put it. Making up this kind of stuff certainly doesn't lend any credibility to your point of view. But I'm sure you could come up with a link to support your 2% claim right.............right?????

I'm well aware what the laws are in this state but like I sad *"most states"* treat first time pot users as a misdemeanor as far as I know.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I don't need a link, few people if any people drink alchoholic beverages for any reason but to get high. If not why wouldn't non-alcholic beer be the big seller, they want the buzz period and the buzz from 2-3 beers isn't any different that smoking pot.

States are only part of the picture, there is local, state, and federal laws all differ in punisment levels


----------



## rap (Mar 26, 2002)

i agree also. even people drinking "socially" are going for that slight buzz that gets them more social and talkative... if it were just social and not to get a buzz, why are people drinking alcoholic beer? it messes up your brain and makes you more sociable


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> I don't need a link


That's odd........ seems a few months ago IIRC you made the comment someone should be able to back up all claims. That's okay though, it is understandable. Here let me do it for you........

http://web4health.info/en/answers/add-alcohol-why.htm

Now I have a question for you.................. what do you think Jesus was trying to do when he drink wine? Seems he drank a lot of the stuff wouldn't you say......should have stayed on topic&#8230;.......it was safer.


----------



## ej4prmc (Dec 3, 2004)

Gohon,
People from those days drank wine as it was the safest form of liquid to drink. Need more answers, just ring me up! :lol:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Gohon your link does help my arguement nicely, You picked a country where pot smoking is legal :lol: :lol: :lol:. And your link is meaningless because it doesn't define social drinking, social drinking to people in that age group means drinking a lot more than they should. So lets see a few links about kids in the same age group as your link here in the good old US.

http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/college/ ... 031115.htm

Heres a useful quote to get you started


> For some reason, we've all just sort of assumed that we can take students' responses on surveys at face value," said Aaron M. White, assistant research professor in the department of psychiatry at Duke University Medical Center and first author of the study, "that if they say they had three drinks, then they really had three drinks. This study suggests that it's just not that simple. Students tend to have pretty liberal views about what constitutes a single drink. *In fact, if a student tells us they had three drinks, there's a good chance it was more like five or six.* This is a big difference, particularly if we're trying to figure out how many students qualify as 'binge drinkers' based on their self-reported drinking habits."


http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/alerts/l/blnaa29.htm

http://www.yaerd.org/binge-drinking.htm

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2002/0 ... print.html

Heres one that shows gallons per drinker ( thats right GALLONS)
http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/databases/consum04.htm

MY point still stands people that drink alchohol drink for the mind altering buzz!

My comment on not needing a link was wrong I should live by the rules like every one else and I apologize for that. I'm getting to be an old crank sometimes I guess   

I think I need a drink.................of coffee :lol:


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Gohon your link does help my arguement nicely, You picked a country where pot smoking is legal . And your link is meaningless because it doesn't define social drinking, social drinking to people in that age group means drinking a lot more than they should. So lets see a few links about kids in the same age group as your link here in the good old US.


Bob you made a blanket statement that 2% of people drink to be sociable. You couldn't support such a ludicrous statement so I provide one for you that showed you were wrong. Now you want to redefine the word sociable because you can't support your claim. In addition you are attempting to spin in several different direction with age groups, pot and who knows what else, in a attempt to change the direction away from your claim. You're spinning so fast I suspect you have taken to many lessons from MT................ stick with your claim of 2% social drinking, you made it now you support it.

The comment you made was about why people drink alcohol, not about alcoholism or abuse of alcohol. I already stated a long time back that was a different subject and it is. If you want to change the question to why people become alcoholics the is fine but it is a different subject........stop spinning.

I notice you completely ignored the question about Jesus and drinking wine......cat got your tongue?


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> People from those days drank wine as it was the safest form of liquid to drink. Need more answers, just ring me up!


If that were true, which it is not, then milk would have been the choice as it is the safest drink of all. Not to mention that apples, figs, grapes and a whole host of other fruits can be made into drinks. Least we not forget plain old water. The reason wine was so popular was because it could be stowed for long periods of time. Don't expect your phone to ring anytime soon.............


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> Bob you made a blanket statement that 2% of people drink to be sociable


I made this statement in reponse to your statement



> It's very simple........... alcohol is still considered a social beverage. You can drink one or two and sometimes three drinks during the course of dinner and it does not screw up your brain.


Which is BS people drink alchhol to get a buzz, to chemically alter their brain, period! I was being generous with the 2% figure. IF it doesn't why don't they have a couple "harmless non mind altering" alchoholic drinks on the way to the office in the morning instead of some coffee?? I'll tell you why they would be fired, because everyone else in the world but you recognizes the delterious effect of any alchohol on the brain.

I'm not going to waste my time argueing with anyone that wants to make the argument that people don't drink to get high, its an idiotic position.
Talk about spinning. :eyeroll:

And I believe Jesus was a man who enjoyed the buzz just like all other men do, so yes I believe he and his apostles drank wine to get high and have fun together. I wasn't avoiding the question it was just not releveant so I thought it was rhetorical.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> I'm not going to waste my time argueing with anyone that wants to make the argument that people don't drink to get high, its an idiotic position.
> Talk about spinning.


I've never stated people don't drink to get high so don't attempt to put words in my mouth. I said to your question "why do people dring" that for most it was because it was considered a social drink. You claim that 98% of people that drink do so just to get high........ that in itself is idiotic in it's purist form.



> And I believe Jesus was a man who enjoyed the buzz just like all other men do, so yes I believe he and his apostles drank wine to get high and have fun together.


Wow...... Jesus Christ, the son of God, savior of men, healer of the blind and he drank wine just for a buzz. LOL..... Bob you really should have backed out of this spin a long time ago.



> I wasn't avoiding the question it was just not releveant so I thought it was rhetorical.


LOL........ of course it wasn't relevant if you couldn't explain it away. And you really shouldn't have tried to.....LOL... Anyway, as was shown by the link I provided 71% of the people who drink do so because of sociability and since this comes from a trained Psychologist who used documented studies, I think I'll just accept her word if it's okay with you. Have a nice Memorial day Bob&#8230;&#8230;..


----------

