Jeff Sessions Announces Justice Department Will Increase Asset Forfeiture(reason.com)
reason.com
Jeff Sessions Announces Justice Department Will Increase Asset Forfeiture
http://reason.com/blog/2017/07/17/sessions-announces-justice-department-wi
96 comments
Not an American but reading all the outrage gives me the impression that police in US is just going around seizing a couple of thousand dollars from anyone they can find to fill up their budget and hope no one will go to court because it'd be more expensive for the accused to hire a lawyer. Nevermind that contingency fee arrangments are widespread and that small amounts of cash, even to the extent of a few tens of thousand dollars can easily be proved as legitimate money if one has a job. Not familiar with US civil procedure but it should involve showing your tax returns and asking for a summary judgment, and later a tort lawsuit against the State for all the suffering caused.
I would be interested in knowing the median amount seized by police in such cases. Maybe its just a case of politicians one after another not being ideologues about property right but recognizing the merits of adopting a pragmatist approach to augment law enforcement budget by seizing large amounts of obviously ill gotten wealth without having to discharge a high (and expensive) burden of proof in each case. If so, sounds good to me.
If you want additional perspective on how it's actually used, then checkout John Oliver's segment on Civil Forfeiture.
This practice (brought back to life by Reagan's "Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984") is not only unjust but unconstitutional at face value.
The cynicism required to double down on this practice is a new low for Sessions, something I didn't think was possible.
The cynicism required to double down on this practice is a new low for Sessions, something I didn't think was possible.
While I appreciate that it is in vogue to bash Trump & Co. (Largely justified I would agree), we would be mistaken to couch this as something new or some difference between the mainstream political parties. Sessions predecessor had no problem with asset forfeiture either: https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-04-11/obamas-do...
There's a difference between "no problem with" and "actively encouraging". It's similar to how the millions of people we now have in prison as a result of three strikes laws and heavy drug enforcement that was popular politically in the 80s and 90s has come to be seen as a bad and ineffective thing - and yet a few months ago Sessions released a statement saying the DOJ recommended pursuing maximum sentencing.
> Sessions also formally withdrew a signature part of Attorney General Eric Holder's "Smart on Crime" initiative, which sought to target the most serious crimes and reduce the number of defendants charged with non-violent drug offenses that would otherwise trigger mandatory minimum sentences.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/12/politics/sessions-criminal-cha...
Without even considering the rest of the Trump administration, Sessions is taking this country backwards and encouraging policies we already know don't work.
> Sessions also formally withdrew a signature part of Attorney General Eric Holder's "Smart on Crime" initiative, which sought to target the most serious crimes and reduce the number of defendants charged with non-violent drug offenses that would otherwise trigger mandatory minimum sentences.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/12/politics/sessions-criminal-cha...
Without even considering the rest of the Trump administration, Sessions is taking this country backwards and encouraging policies we already know don't work.
In the US News article I posted, AG Lynch was actively encouraging the practice by reviving the equitable sharing program. A program designed to be sure those that collect the loot get their cut. My informal turn of phrase notwithstanding, the so-called progressives are just as regressive on this issue add their conservative counterparts.
[deleted]
Justice Thomas indicated he will vote to strike down the law should the case be brought before him. With him having said that soon enough a lawyer will appear to argue the case, this practice will not last.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
Government in this country is completely off the rails insane. At least ten-fifteen, heck twenty years ago you could sort of understand why certain policy decisions were made... nowadays it is like completely impossible to figure out what people in power are trying to actually accomplish.
"...nowadays it is like completely impossible to figure out what people in power are trying to actually accomplish"
Really? It's the same as it's ever been...they want more money, more control and more time.
Really? It's the same as it's ever been...they want more money, more control and more time.
Really? It doesn't seem that hard to understand what motivates Jeff Sessions--filling up private prisons and using police to terrorize poor and minority communities.
The nickname for (former AG under Obama) Loretta Lynch was Queen of Forfeiture, and has a body of work reflecting this when she was working in Brooklyn. It would be insane to think that civil forfeiture was not a problem the past 8 years.
It's been a problem. But to say 'let's double down on that' is not a solution, is it?
Not a single person in this entire thread has claimed it wasn’t a problem the last 8 years.
Be better.
Be better.
But there are quite a few people losing their minds now that the "other side" is continuing to do what's been done for years.
Forfeiture, bombing the Middle East, travel bans, etc
So much stuff the current Administration is doing that the last Administration did...
and NOW people are losing their shit.
Just a bit questionable for a large part of the conversation to be started now, eh?
Forfeiture, bombing the Middle East, travel bans, etc
So much stuff the current Administration is doing that the last Administration did...
and NOW people are losing their shit.
Just a bit questionable for a large part of the conversation to be started now, eh?
There are a large number of people (Including reason.com) that have been complaining about this for decades, long before Trump or even Obama.
And yes people should be "losing their minds" over the elicitation in these tactics.
And yes people should be "losing their minds" over the elicitation in these tactics.
Granted, there are people on both sides that have been complaining about it for years. Either because "My Team"... or because "Government Bad" (I especially agree with regards to Asset Forfeiture)...
But there are a large number of people who are only NOW raising hell about drone bombs, travel bans, EO's, Scotus decisions, etc, etc, etc...
Where was the ruckus during the last 8 years of horrible decisions, bad direction, over reach, etc?
I'm not saying it doesn't need to be address... but the amount of "My Team" that goes on is... maddening...
But there are a large number of people who are only NOW raising hell about drone bombs, travel bans, EO's, Scotus decisions, etc, etc, etc...
Where was the ruckus during the last 8 years of horrible decisions, bad direction, over reach, etc?
I'm not saying it doesn't need to be address... but the amount of "My Team" that goes on is... maddening...
The travel “bans” are not equivalent, first off.
Second, try using Reddit’s search function or Google’s trends app to see just how devastatingly demonstrably wrong your claims about interest in bombing the Middle East or civil asset forfeiture are.
Sort of looks like you’re the only one who’s just now giving a shit, eh?
Second, try using Reddit’s search function or Google’s trends app to see just how devastatingly demonstrably wrong your claims about interest in bombing the Middle East or civil asset forfeiture are.
Sort of looks like you’re the only one who’s just now giving a shit, eh?
The Travel Bans are re-markedly similar... based on a list of countries by the previous Administration.
Bombing the Middle East broke all records during the last Administration... not that this one won't continue to break records, but we were at war for the entire previous Administration and will probably remain so for this one...
I know of many cases of CAF during the previous Administration. I'm sad that the current administration doesn't seem to be restoring law and order to the degree I had hoped they would.
I've given a shit for a long time. I live in a heavily one-sided state and I sit on the other side - so, for the most part, my vote doesn't matter.
What DOES matter is that the stuff people are RAGING MAD!!!! about is stuff that, for a large part, is no different from before. You can nit-pick over minor differences between Travel bans... but there was NO care about those bans for the 8 years prior.
My main point here... is people pick a team... and then lose their shit when their team loses. What's important isn't the Travel Ban (or whatever). Whats important is the "Other Guy's Quarterback" is calling the plays. Even if they are the same plays "My Quarterback" would have chosen - or has chosen repeatedly - NOW we are going to "resist".
The hypocrisy is maddening - from both "sides".
Bombing the Middle East broke all records during the last Administration... not that this one won't continue to break records, but we were at war for the entire previous Administration and will probably remain so for this one...
I know of many cases of CAF during the previous Administration. I'm sad that the current administration doesn't seem to be restoring law and order to the degree I had hoped they would.
I've given a shit for a long time. I live in a heavily one-sided state and I sit on the other side - so, for the most part, my vote doesn't matter.
What DOES matter is that the stuff people are RAGING MAD!!!! about is stuff that, for a large part, is no different from before. You can nit-pick over minor differences between Travel bans... but there was NO care about those bans for the 8 years prior.
My main point here... is people pick a team... and then lose their shit when their team loses. What's important isn't the Travel Ban (or whatever). Whats important is the "Other Guy's Quarterback" is calling the plays. Even if they are the same plays "My Quarterback" would have chosen - or has chosen repeatedly - NOW we are going to "resist".
The hypocrisy is maddening - from both "sides".
[deleted]
> Sort of looks like you’re the only one who’s just now giving a shit, eh?
And you'll note, they're not even giving a shit about asset forfeiture, or travel bans—they're giving a shit about people complaining about Trump.
And you'll note, they're not even giving a shit about asset forfeiture, or travel bans—they're giving a shit about people complaining about Trump.
In this case, it's about direction.
Holder and Lynch at least showed some signs of slowly creeping away from the failed 1980s policies, such as reducing mandatory minimums (http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/12/politics/holder-mandatory-mini...) and letting states experiment a little bit (albeit grumpily in Lynch's case in particular) with legal marijuana laws (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/29/justic...).
Jeff Sessions in contrast is pretty much doubling down on failed 1980s policy. A more trivial but telling example is how Sessions completely embraced D.A.R.E. -- a program that pretty much has been proven over and over again as ineffective.(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448384/)
Holder and Lynch at least showed some signs of slowly creeping away from the failed 1980s policies, such as reducing mandatory minimums (http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/12/politics/holder-mandatory-mini...) and letting states experiment a little bit (albeit grumpily in Lynch's case in particular) with legal marijuana laws (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/29/justic...).
Jeff Sessions in contrast is pretty much doubling down on failed 1980s policy. A more trivial but telling example is how Sessions completely embraced D.A.R.E. -- a program that pretty much has been proven over and over again as ineffective.(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448384/)
Well... I don't think the last Administration had any sort of reasonable direction. There is a reason that they lost not just the Majority of the houses... but both sides of Congress AND the White House.
I hope DARE doesn't return - as you said, the War on Drugs is about as successful as Prohibition... aka: not remotely.
There are many things I like and dislike about the current administration... I don't think I'd like a doubling down on a failed War on Drugs.
I hope DARE doesn't return - as you said, the War on Drugs is about as successful as Prohibition... aka: not remotely.
There are many things I like and dislike about the current administration... I don't think I'd like a doubling down on a failed War on Drugs.
I personally prefer "creeping towards the right direction" to Sessions style doubling down, but I agree that this isn't a black-and-white "one side bad other side good" situation.
Definitely, neither party (at the national level in particular) has been doing what most policy wonks I've read would believe is the correct thing... and I've been reading for decades how America's criminal justice policies (from its high prison rate to horrible policies like civil asset forfeiture) are often ineffective, expensive, and prone to corruption.
Unfortunately, Americans historically has rewarded "tough on crime" stances at the ballot box, definitely in the 1980s and 1990s from what I remember. That probably honestly is the root cause. Even today, a majority of Americans still generally want to be "tough" on violent criminals, even if "tough" might be ineffective. (https://www.vox.com/2016/9/7/12814504/mass-incarceration-pol...) The good news is that Americans are changing their views on non-violent drug offenders -- there's some agreement that locking them up may not be the best thing.
For this particular issue, there pretty much is bipartisan agreement that civil asset forfeiture is horrible. (https://www.cato.org/blog/84-americans-oppose-civil-asset-fo...).
I've heard of some states partially reforming civil asset forfeiture recently -- as it seems typical in politics these days, a hodgepodge of states, led by neither one party or the other (often the reform bills are with bipartisan support), lead the way.
Definitely, neither party (at the national level in particular) has been doing what most policy wonks I've read would believe is the correct thing... and I've been reading for decades how America's criminal justice policies (from its high prison rate to horrible policies like civil asset forfeiture) are often ineffective, expensive, and prone to corruption.
Unfortunately, Americans historically has rewarded "tough on crime" stances at the ballot box, definitely in the 1980s and 1990s from what I remember. That probably honestly is the root cause. Even today, a majority of Americans still generally want to be "tough" on violent criminals, even if "tough" might be ineffective. (https://www.vox.com/2016/9/7/12814504/mass-incarceration-pol...) The good news is that Americans are changing their views on non-violent drug offenders -- there's some agreement that locking them up may not be the best thing.
For this particular issue, there pretty much is bipartisan agreement that civil asset forfeiture is horrible. (https://www.cato.org/blog/84-americans-oppose-civil-asset-fo...).
I've heard of some states partially reforming civil asset forfeiture recently -- as it seems typical in politics these days, a hodgepodge of states, led by neither one party or the other (often the reform bills are with bipartisan support), lead the way.
It's now possible for a drug dealer to serve time in a forfeiture-financed prison after being arrested by agents driving a forfeiture-provided automobile while working in a forfeiture-funded sting operation.
— Reagan attorney general Richard Thornburgh in 1989
Replace "drug dealer" with "minority individual" and this quote would be as accurate today as it was in 1989.
— Reagan attorney general Richard Thornburgh in 1989
Replace "drug dealer" with "minority individual" and this quote would be as accurate today as it was in 1989.
I suppose then the mystery has now shifted to why no one is seemingly doing anything about it?
I hope that does not come across as sardonic. If a functional mechanism to curb these kinds of excesses does not exist anymore, that is something which we will have to come to terms with as a society.
I hope that does not come across as sardonic. If a functional mechanism to curb these kinds of excesses does not exist anymore, that is something which we will have to come to terms with as a society.
a bit bias I think you are. I voted you down because this isn't a productive conversation.
the evidence speaks for itself. bias seems to be a norm in american politic
The short justification made by those who support asset forfeiture is that it is helping fund state and local law enforcement efforts via ill-gotten gains (esp. drug money) in a time of budgetary constraints. This actually does not sound unreasonable on the surface if one holds a certain perspective of the law (my personal views differ).
That said, the reality is that the asset forfeiture regulations are not well-formed, and the oversight is very far from where it needs to be given the extreme power these laws give to the law enforcement authorities. As such, this effectively leads to a money grab in some areas.
This just strikes me as a case of making a potentially reasonable policy (if that's one's perspective on the world), but not creating the proper infrastructure to support it in a transparent way that mainstream citizens would find reasonable. As such, it is very prone to abuse.
Note also that the biggest hauls give some federal agencies a tremendous amount budget flexibility. Again, the oversight for this is not well-formed, perhaps intentionally.
Note that I personally do not agree with this line of thinking, but I just wanted to explain the perspectives of others who support these decisions.
That said, the reality is that the asset forfeiture regulations are not well-formed, and the oversight is very far from where it needs to be given the extreme power these laws give to the law enforcement authorities. As such, this effectively leads to a money grab in some areas.
This just strikes me as a case of making a potentially reasonable policy (if that's one's perspective on the world), but not creating the proper infrastructure to support it in a transparent way that mainstream citizens would find reasonable. As such, it is very prone to abuse.
Note also that the biggest hauls give some federal agencies a tremendous amount budget flexibility. Again, the oversight for this is not well-formed, perhaps intentionally.
Note that I personally do not agree with this line of thinking, but I just wanted to explain the perspectives of others who support these decisions.
It is also a problem of people confusing CRIMINAL asset forfeiture, with CIVIL asset forfeiture.
CRIMINAL asset forfeiture they can seize drug money provided they prove an individual committed a crime and link that asset to said crime beyond a reasonable doubt
Civil Asset forfeiture they have do not have to prove a crime was committed, and the person has to prove they obtained the asset legally.
Criminal Asset forfeiture if you can not afford a lawyer one is provided to you, Civil Asset forfeiture you are simply SOL, so if they take $10,000 from you, and a lawyer want $10,000 to fight your case well why bother?
Civil Asset Forfeiture is a end run around due process and the constitution
CRIMINAL asset forfeiture they can seize drug money provided they prove an individual committed a crime and link that asset to said crime beyond a reasonable doubt
Civil Asset forfeiture they have do not have to prove a crime was committed, and the person has to prove they obtained the asset legally.
Criminal Asset forfeiture if you can not afford a lawyer one is provided to you, Civil Asset forfeiture you are simply SOL, so if they take $10,000 from you, and a lawyer want $10,000 to fight your case well why bother?
Civil Asset Forfeiture is a end run around due process and the constitution
Is part of the justification for asset forfeiture to prevent criminals from hiding assets?
For example, if my wife (or girlfriend or brother or associate) buys an airplane and I use it to fly drugs from Mexico into the US, then without forfeiture laws I could be charged, but the airplane wouldn't be seized. Is that right?
I've heard the argument that money is presumed guilty (or something to that affect) and I've never quite nailed down what that was all about. Does it make sense to you?
For example, if my wife (or girlfriend or brother or associate) buys an airplane and I use it to fly drugs from Mexico into the US, then without forfeiture laws I could be charged, but the airplane wouldn't be seized. Is that right?
I've heard the argument that money is presumed guilty (or something to that affect) and I've never quite nailed down what that was all about. Does it make sense to you?
The "money is presumed guilty" is that in case of civil asset forfeiture, when e.g. cops search your car and find that you have a few thousand dollars on you (e.g. because you are on your way to buy something expensive in person), they can't easily arrest you for something, since they'd have to prove you did it. But they can say that if someone is traveling by car with a lot of cash, it likely is is drug money and take the cash.
Also ends up with legal proceedings then not against you, but against your money: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U...
Also ends up with legal proceedings then not against you, but against your money: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U...
It is much harder to prove yes, that said however there are often other crimes committed by the wife/brother/etc like Ta Evasions, Money laundering, etc that would be used so even if the base crime is drug dealing, but the wife/brother/etc if they are getting a Airplane via drug money then chances are there is some other violation of criminal law they did in the transfer of that money to buy the plane.
There are 2 common things that lead to a seizure, people have in their possession large sums of money or valubake assets while traveling. A minor crime in commited (like having a small qty of drugs) so the police take unrelated assets sometimes not even owned by the person. Example is when the government seized a persons home because their child had drugs in their room.
Most of the cases the government has to prove it is "more likely than not" the property is connected to a criminal event, this is a terribly low standard is given the number of laws on the books easily overcome by most prosecutors
However as IJ States in their report Policing for Profit
https://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/other_pubs/assetforfeit...
"if property is used illegally without the owner’s knowledge or consent, the burden is placed on the property owner to establish her innocence in court, not the government to prove otherwise. In other words, a property owner is guilty until proven innocent. "
They continue with
"In reality, few property owners, especially low-income individuals, can meet the burdens of civil forfeiture proceedings and often do not challenge seizures of their property. This is especially true when government seizes property the value of which would be greatly exceeded by the time, attorney fees and other expenses necessary to fight the forfeiture. As a result, many property owners do not and cannot challenge forfeitures, and the government obtains the property by default."
That is what happens most of the time, the process is soooo slanted in favor of the government people just give up and do not even attempt to fight. The government then twists that as being "proof" the property was gotten via illegal means and often cited as the "system working"
There are 2 common things that lead to a seizure, people have in their possession large sums of money or valubake assets while traveling. A minor crime in commited (like having a small qty of drugs) so the police take unrelated assets sometimes not even owned by the person. Example is when the government seized a persons home because their child had drugs in their room.
Most of the cases the government has to prove it is "more likely than not" the property is connected to a criminal event, this is a terribly low standard is given the number of laws on the books easily overcome by most prosecutors
However as IJ States in their report Policing for Profit
https://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/other_pubs/assetforfeit...
"if property is used illegally without the owner’s knowledge or consent, the burden is placed on the property owner to establish her innocence in court, not the government to prove otherwise. In other words, a property owner is guilty until proven innocent. "
They continue with
"In reality, few property owners, especially low-income individuals, can meet the burdens of civil forfeiture proceedings and often do not challenge seizures of their property. This is especially true when government seizes property the value of which would be greatly exceeded by the time, attorney fees and other expenses necessary to fight the forfeiture. As a result, many property owners do not and cannot challenge forfeitures, and the government obtains the property by default."
That is what happens most of the time, the process is soooo slanted in favor of the government people just give up and do not even attempt to fight. The government then twists that as being "proof" the property was gotten via illegal means and often cited as the "system working"
Can I say this? What a fucked up country.
What you currently see, and I find it dramatic: the anglo-saxon world is in decline. Canada, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand might be alive and kicking, but they represent only a minority of people in the anglo-saxon world.
This decline shows itself in people like Trump or the Brexit.
This decline shows itself in people like Trump or the Brexit.
Perhaps Trump and Brexit are (likely misguided) attempts to stop the decline rather than the actual decline itself?
Ok, not joking now. What Britain and USA are currently doing is giving up power. They have so much internal conflicts that somehow people feel getting on their own will help them. But giving up power rarely made a nation larger and stronger. So they are declining. USA could have been the master of TPP or TTIP, or create some Euro-American superstructure in rememberance of our common roots. They could have been the leader of many things. But instead they just leave and go away. No negocitations. The world will not stop, it will go on, everything else is hallucination. The Chinese are ready to fill the void, and Europe is already bonding with them now that the US don't seem to be interested in anything constructive. So there is no stopping the decline. It is in full speed and it will lead to ugly situations. And as someone who loves(d) the US, this is a pity to me.
Well to be fair some people blame the decline on an increase in minorities and pot smoking hipsters. But I'm generally skeptical of "reasons" because people seem to want always blame everyone else.
Besides, I think the "decline" is a bit overstated. America isn't going anywhere. Things start getting tough and the guns will come out and they have a lot of those. Besides maybe Anglo Saxons shouldn't rule the whole world. And really nothing lasts forever. China might supplant the west as global leader, this was predicted I think two centuries ago, but it won't happen for a while.
Besides, I think the "decline" is a bit overstated. America isn't going anywhere. Things start getting tough and the guns will come out and they have a lot of those. Besides maybe Anglo Saxons shouldn't rule the whole world. And really nothing lasts forever. China might supplant the west as global leader, this was predicted I think two centuries ago, but it won't happen for a while.
Of course you can stop ageing by killing yourself...
No, you can't. But you can say "what a fucked up federal administration".
If you think this is limited to the federal administration I recommend you spend some time investigating the kinds of lunacy that are afoot in state legislatures in places like Kansas, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Texas (et al).
Soon you have to consider Asset Forfeiture as a 'hidden' tax on the economy. Same when 'revolutionary forces' condemn land from farmers or dictators disown factory owners.
This is a good point, and I don't think we see enough economics perspective on this subject.
The problem is that "Asset Forfeiture" appears to work in making drug dealing (and other black market criminal activities) a much more risky business.
The question is how do we balance something that works with restoring property to law-abiding citizens when police make a mistake?
There seems to be little to no process around this.
There will be resistance to installing processes because criminals will use it to reclaim their dirty money and more process will cost time and money, making forfeiture less effective.
The problem is that "Asset Forfeiture" appears to work in making drug dealing (and other black market criminal activities) a much more risky business.
The question is how do we balance something that works with restoring property to law-abiding citizens when police make a mistake?
There seems to be little to no process around this.
There will be resistance to installing processes because criminals will use it to reclaim their dirty money and more process will cost time and money, making forfeiture less effective.
>>The problem is that "Asset Forfeiture" appears to work in making drug dealing (and other black market criminal activities) a much more risky business.
Citation, I have read alot of reports and studies on this subject none of them support our position
Citation, I have read alot of reports and studies on this subject none of them support our position
[deleted]
Sessions is so out of touch it's insane.
I only hope this increase will lead to the increase in lawsuits, and judicial review of this awful practice.
Jeff Sessions is like an evil caricature of what an Attorney General should be. I hope this whole administration goes down and soon. The war on drugs failed decades ago, let's focus on rehabilitation and getting people back to society and things to be excited about instead of drugs (but wait, that problem is so much harder to solve!)
On a trip to Montreal this weekend I seriously considered just staying...
On a trip to Montreal this weekend I seriously considered just staying...
The war on drugs failed decades ago...
If you subscribe to the view that the war on drugs is/was chiefly motivated by white supremacy and the preservation of a minority right-wing establishment (as Ehrlichman apparently did [1]), it's arguably been a success.
The administration is supported by a minority of the electorate, the administration is a right-wing regime filled with unrepentant bigots, the administration wants the war on drugs to be maintained and intensified. These things fit together in a very unsurprising way, once one can get over the shock of just how petty and vile the fabulously wealthy elites running the government turn out to be.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ehrlichman#War_on_drugs
If you subscribe to the view that the war on drugs is/was chiefly motivated by white supremacy and the preservation of a minority right-wing establishment (as Ehrlichman apparently did [1]), it's arguably been a success.
The administration is supported by a minority of the electorate, the administration is a right-wing regime filled with unrepentant bigots, the administration wants the war on drugs to be maintained and intensified. These things fit together in a very unsurprising way, once one can get over the shock of just how petty and vile the fabulously wealthy elites running the government turn out to be.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ehrlichman#War_on_drugs
Why would the administration "go down"?
The collusion investigation and Muller's potentially damaging report?
An investigation doesn't necessarily mean that actionable wrongdoing will be uncovered (even if it occurred). Mueller might come back and say "we discovered some inappropriate behavior, but nothing that can be effectively prosecuted". It's also possible that the investigation discovers wrongdoing that does not implicate Trump, even if it does implicate some of those in his cabinet or campaign. Finally, even if Trump "goes down" Pence will simply replace him and continue a nearly identical agenda except he'll be relatively competent.
Yup, exactly. Though unfortunately I don't think it's going to take down as many people as it needs to that are pushing insane policies.
> that problem is so much harder to solve!
Is it? Why don't we try and see?
Is it? Why don't we try and see?
I'd love our government to do that! They seem more focused though on deporting people and pushing unpopular policies, though.
We are better than this, over the top rhetoric is only going to make this discussion ugly. I know I had my fair share of hissy-fits, but the idea that some group of people are inherently evil cannot be logically argued beyond a point.
Yeah I tried my non "over the top" arguments a few months ago but this administration just keeps on keeping on so I'm a little sick of just trying to give people the benefit of the doubt. Sessions is the one who thinks things are black and white - drug users are all criminals! See what he says about marijuana for proof...he thinks it's just as dangerous as all other drugs when there are scientific studies that it's not nearly as bad as, say, Heroin, which its apparently in the same schedule as.
like an evil caricature, not actually one.
You’re not doing any better going up and down this thread punching straw men and condescendingly misinterpreting comments.
They didn’t even characterize a group of people as evil!
You’re not doing any better going up and down this thread punching straw men and condescendingly misinterpreting comments.
They didn’t even characterize a group of people as evil!
I was warned (by mods)of comments like that in past, I am not playing a mod, but trying to be a bit helpful. If you take it with worst of assumption, I guess I am a condescending prick who got out of bed, to wag a finger at some comment submitter and feel better. #SoBeIT.
Jeff Sessions is an evil person and that's not rhetoric, unfortunately.
That is _exactly_ rhetoric. And hyperbole. (As well as subjective opinion).
Jeff Sessions is just a guy. An old guy, from a different time with who's opinions you don't agree. He won't be here long so don't get all worked up.
Jeff Sessions is just a guy. An old guy, from a different time with who's opinions you don't agree. He won't be here long so don't get all worked up.
> from a different time
There are plenty of decent men from that time. Jeff Sessions isn't one of them
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/12/...
There are plenty of decent men from that time. Jeff Sessions isn't one of them
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/12/...
[deleted]
>An old guy, from a different time with who's opinions you don't agree.
See also "racist"
See also "racist"
I know I had my fair share of hissy-fits...
"Hissy fit" is a gendered insult. You're suggesting that anyone who admits that Sessions has bad intentions is acting like a menstruating woman. It's really offensive. Maybe English isn't your first language, maybe you didn't understand this. You aren't elevating the level of discourse here.
...the idea that some group of people are inherently evil cannot be logically argued...
We're talking about one person in this case, and he's had a long career which makes the argument (that he acts with malice aforethought, that he's chosen to do the more-evil option over and over again) more strongly than any "logic" anyone's likely to construct for a message board post.
"Hissy fit" is a gendered insult. You're suggesting that anyone who admits that Sessions has bad intentions is acting like a menstruating woman. It's really offensive. Maybe English isn't your first language, maybe you didn't understand this. You aren't elevating the level of discourse here.
...the idea that some group of people are inherently evil cannot be logically argued...
We're talking about one person in this case, and he's had a long career which makes the argument (that he acts with malice aforethought, that he's chosen to do the more-evil option over and over again) more strongly than any "logic" anyone's likely to construct for a message board post.
This is going to rack up downvotes and idgaf. It certainly can be argued, and quite effectively, your "mommy-and-daddy-are-fighting-again" response to the faintest whiff of conflict notwithstanding.
I don't like Mr. Sessions, nor do I like asset forfeiture, but I'd like to know more about the efficacy of rehab before heading down that path. I asked for some stats about rehab in the recent opioid epidemic thread, but I didn't receive any. Even as everyone threw forward ideas about free state sponsored heroin and rehab programs.
I really would like to see some stats before forming an opinion on emotions alone. After all, it was emotions that landed us here.
Some people just don't want to rejoin society. Why choose life when you've got heroin? Pretty sure that rehab doesn't have a good success rate in those situations.
I really would like to see some stats before forming an opinion on emotions alone. After all, it was emotions that landed us here.
Some people just don't want to rejoin society. Why choose life when you've got heroin? Pretty sure that rehab doesn't have a good success rate in those situations.
If you are interested in statistics about the success of treatment programs you can google it and do the research. It's important to think about addiction as a disease and treat it as such. It spreads like a disease and it inflicts damage across society like a disease. It's killing 60,000 people a year.
I will say that I can see the damage here in the Detroit region from another untreated addiction epidemic, the crack crisis from the 80s. So much of the regions ills come from treating it as a criminal justice problem instead of a health crisis. A generation was lost to either the drugs themselves or the war on drugs.
I will say that I can see the damage here in the Detroit region from another untreated addiction epidemic, the crack crisis from the 80s. So much of the regions ills come from treating it as a criminal justice problem instead of a health crisis. A generation was lost to either the drugs themselves or the war on drugs.
I've tried to Google it and do the research, but I mostly find rhetoric or self serving studies (or good ones behind medical association walls). That's why I posted and asked for links. I'm not against rehab, I just haven't seen anything saying that it works on a large scale (except enriching treatment corporations).
I'm not saying incarceration is the answer. I'm trying to do research to see what might be better.
Everyone downvoting, thanks for the negative feedback on someone trying to form a fact based stance on a touchy subject and asking questions.
I'm not saying incarceration is the answer. I'm trying to do research to see what might be better.
Everyone downvoting, thanks for the negative feedback on someone trying to form a fact based stance on a touchy subject and asking questions.
There's no tidy table, but "75% drop" sounds promising.
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/04/18/524380027/i...
Especially when coupled with "cheaper".
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/04/18/524380027/i...
Especially when coupled with "cheaper".
Yeah, I'm really looking for a good study that isn't behind a medical pay wall or requires professional creds to read.
The 95% drop in HIV is a great side stat, but really looking more on stats for rehab programs.
The 95% drop in HIV is a great side stat, but really looking more on stats for rehab programs.
They instituted mandatory treatment for people found with personal use amounts of drugs and then but it's actually a 75 percent drop from the 1990s.
I suppose what I am suggesting is that this is sufficient evidence for you to stop casting doubt and go find evidence for it if you want to continue questioning treatment.
Otherwise you get to argue by shouting at the monkeys to dance as you demand ever higher quality proof that you are wrong.
I suppose what I am suggesting is that this is sufficient evidence for you to stop casting doubt and go find evidence for it if you want to continue questioning treatment.
Otherwise you get to argue by shouting at the monkeys to dance as you demand ever higher quality proof that you are wrong.
TYPE_FASTER posted something along the lines of what I was looking for. I was looking for something more substantial than a one liner in a NPR article. That's exactly the stuff I was trying to avoid.
I'll stop shouting at the monkeys now.
I'll stop shouting at the monkeys now.
http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents...
https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/principles-drug-abuse...
https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/principles-drug-abuse...
Nice! This is what I was looking for. Thanks!
>Why choose life when you've got heroin?
Heroin abuse is in the extreme minority when it comes to opioid abuse. You need to get rid of the image in your head of the strung-out heroin addict lazing about in a grubby drug den. A majority of the opioid epidemic these days is actually from prescription opioids like Oxycontin , Vicodin, and similar drugs. So there's plenty of high functioning blue and white collar opioid addicts out there with plenty to lose.
Heroin abuse is in the extreme minority when it comes to opioid abuse. You need to get rid of the image in your head of the strung-out heroin addict lazing about in a grubby drug den. A majority of the opioid epidemic these days is actually from prescription opioids like Oxycontin , Vicodin, and similar drugs. So there's plenty of high functioning blue and white collar opioid addicts out there with plenty to lose.
The only difference between heroin and oxycontin is oxycontin is more expensive. The effect is identical. Most opiate addicts that can get heroin do it because it's a fraction of the cost.
I live in San Francisco and the majority of street junkies here are on heroin. The junkies here are strung out on the sidewalk and my doorway, not in a grubby drug den. Maybe that's what I'm faced with so that's what I care about? Sure there's so term for that.
Treating those addicted to heroin as criminals is far less likely to help them or society, and is probably just as expensive if not moreso. What exactly do you propose doing instead?
Not sure, that's why I'm asking. Rehab? Government provided drugs? Safe places for taking drugs that also provide the drugs?
If there's someone on drugs that wants to be on drugs, I think a real possibility is that we keep giving them drugs until they want to change. Remove the criminal element and possibility of disease and adultered drugs be having the government provide the drugs. Then give them help once someone is ready for help.
Just spit balling here. Maybe I'm wrong and forced rehab has better efficacy rates.
If there's someone on drugs that wants to be on drugs, I think a real possibility is that we keep giving them drugs until they want to change. Remove the criminal element and possibility of disease and adultered drugs be having the government provide the drugs. Then give them help once someone is ready for help.
Just spit balling here. Maybe I'm wrong and forced rehab has better efficacy rates.
> I don't like Mr. Sessions, nor do I like asset forfeiture, but I'd like to know more about the efficacy of rehab before heading down that path.
It's a lot more effective (and just) than locking people up.
It's a lot more effective (and just) than locking people up.
Links plz... not asking for proof, asking for studies I can point to in my own arguments.
jerrylives(1)
squozzer(1)
So, now, asset forfeiture can be a useful tool to undermine criminal activity (or any activity really) of a specific person. But this must happen in a fair trial (unless danger is imminent, under which one can argue in favor of indemnity). In this case there hasn't even been a charge brought forward. This alone is executive abuse of power, because a independent judicial system must only be allowed to take such actions.
Moreover, this will hit economically weak peak people hardest. Which further increases crime. It's a vicious circle.