Finally! A list of BLM demands!

[sggatecl]

One of the excuses you hear with regard to the Catholic pedophile scandal is that back in the 70's, they thought pedophilia was a disease they could cure. I guess that line of thinking hasn't gone away completely, because there are still efforts to cure it.

I hear dropping them in an enclosure of gorillas does the trick.

 

[KAWDUP]

My argument all along has been that treatment would be more effective than imprisonment. Treatment would do more to reduce usage than imprisonment, the social cost would be less vs imprisonment. Lowering the demand for drugs is much more effective than lowering the supply, the war on drugs has been going on for 40 years and it's done little if anything to reduce usage which is what drives this whole illegal economy and promotes murder at astonishing rates in the US and also in the countries that supply drugs to us.

I do not want to continue the argument, but I have a real question. I would like to hear what your solution would be to how to provide that much treatment? Most treatment centers are full, and there are waits to get a bed, especially in most of the free ones out there (you know the ones that actually take Medicaid or Obamacare). Is the cost to build centers and train people to actually man them included in your social cost? I am really asking that as I don't know.

Unfortunately, the truly successful ones are successful not because they use methadone and more therapy, they are successful because the people who work at them care very deeply about trying to solve the problem, and in turn care very much about the patients interned there. Are you going to help man one of these new centers, as you seem to care quite a bit about providing treatment? If not, then have you considered the costs associated with making the jobs desirable? Let me tell you, you haven't had real fun until you take care of the daily needs of someone coming down from a binge.

I am just saying it is easy to say lets treat rather than incarcerate, but if the treatment is ineffective, you are right back where you started. Society does what they always do, throw money at it and hope the problem doesn't come to their doorstep - and of course this leads to paying to put them in jail - there problem solved in the most expedient way.

All your arguments could all be true, but there aren't solutions being offered that actually mean anything.

 

[KAWDUP]

Waiting for Michamp's "zzzzzzzz" or his scratching head emoji. It is what he does.

 

[Michchamp]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZzzzz... *huh* somebody called my name?

 

[Michchamp]

oh, it's just a bunch of people who know nothing about drugs lecturing everyone else on what the problem is.

back to sleep... wake me up when football starts.
mZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzZZZZzzZzzzzzz

 

[Sbee]

I do not want to continue the argument, but I have a real question. I would like to hear what your solution would be to how to provide that much treatment? Most treatment centers are full, and there are waits to get a bed, especially in most of the free ones out there (you know the ones that actually take Medicaid or Obamacare). Is the cost to build centers and train people to actually man them included in your social cost? I am really asking that as I don't know.

Unfortunately, the truly successful ones are successful not because they use methadone and more therapy, they are successful because the people who work at them care very deeply about trying to solve the problem, and in turn care very much about the patients interned there. Are you going to help man one of these new centers, as you seem to care quite a bit about providing treatment? If not, then have you considered the costs associated with making the jobs desirable? Let me tell you, you haven't had real fun until you take care of the daily needs of someone coming down from a binge.

I am just saying it is easy to say lets treat rather than incarcerate, but if the treatment is ineffective, you are right back where you started. Society does what they always do, throw money at it and hope the problem doesn't come to their doorstep - and of course this leads to paying to put them in jail - there problem solved in the most expedient way.

All your arguments could all be true, but there aren't solutions being offered that actually mean anything.

Of course I don't have all of the answers but I'd divert funding that's used for futile measures in the war on drugs that do nothing to reduce demand. If you look at the creation of this prison state look to the Reagan and Clinton administrations. From 1981 to 1984, the National institute on Drug abuse saw its funding cut from 274 million to 57 million. Clinton passed a 30 billion dollar crime bill and a 16 billion dollar grant for more state prisons. the bill created dozens of new federal crime classifications, mandated life sentences for 3 time offenders, and took discretion away from the judges.

Am I going to volunteer at these centers? highly unlikely, I'll work and pay my taxes and support measures to increase rehabilitation. I can't find the study but I know somewhere in Europe they saw relapses greatly reduced by offering incentives for employers to hire people in recovery, maybe some kind of paid community improvement service. It might take some out of the box thinking, you would commission studies to find out what programs are the most effective and shift resources there. I think it's pretty obvious that incarceration doesn't have a significant impact on drug usage, in the last 30 years prison population has gone from 300k to 2m thanks to mandatory minimums and increases in the war on drugs. I'd offer some kind of alternative since our current system is costly and does little to reduce demand.

 

[Sbee]

Heading out on vacation for a few days, keep arguing for the stays quo, it's working out well! More cops, more prisons, longer sentences, addiction rates relatively unchanged.

 

[Spartanmack]

Of course I don't have all of the answers but I'd divert funding that's used for futile measures in the war on drugs that do nothing to reduce demand. If you look at the creation of this prison state look to the Reagan and Clinton administrations. From 1981 to 1984, the National institute on Drug abuse saw its funding cut from 274 million to 57 million. Clinton passed a 30 billion dollar crime bill and a 16 billion dollar grant for more state prisons. the bill created dozens of new federal crime classifications, mandated life sentences for 3 time offenders, and took discretion away from the judges.

Am I going to volunteer at these centers? highly unlikely, I'll work and pay my taxes and support measures to increase rehabilitation. I can't find the study but I know somewhere in Europe they saw relapses greatly reduced by offering incentives for employers to hire people in recovery, maybe some kind of paid community improvement service. It might take some out of the box thinking, you would commission studies to find out what programs are the most effective and shift resources there. I think it's pretty obvious that incarceration doesn't have a significant impact on drug usage, in the last 30 years prison population has gone from 300k to 2m thanks to mandatory minimums and increases in the war on drugs. I'd offer some kind of alternative since our current system is costly and does little to reduce demand.

I also think you're under a false impression about the numbers when it comes to drug crimes. In federal prison, 55% of inmates were serving time for drug charges, that's 95k people. In state institutions the number is 25% of 2.1mm or 525k. Of the 3.9mm people on probation, 25% or 978k had a drug charge as their most serious offense. Of the 853k people on parole in America 32% or 273k had a drug charge as their most serious offense. That's a total of 1.872mm people in the system with drug charges as their most serious charge, a third of which are incarcerated.

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Prisons_and_Drugs#sthash.Fer79LZe.dpbs

Now it's naive to think 100% of those people are nonviolent offenders but let's assume they are - that's not millions of people - it's 0.59% of the population, even less when you consider not all of those people are addicts in need of treatment. Further, it's stupid to think that people who deal drugs, particularly cocaine, crystal meth and heroine in large quantities, especially in depressed communities that don't have resources to combat addiction let alone the fallout of criminal activity, are nonviolent and/or don't deserve strict sentences. So if you're able to control for that, the number of people "in the system" for minor drug offenses is hardly and epidemic.

I haven't found data on % of violent offenders on probation or parole but I think it's fair to conclude that given over 51% of the people incarcerated in America are violent offenders, it's probably not wise to scrap mandatory minimums or the 3 strike rule altogether. If you're arguing that we should establish some more lenient ground rules for low level offenders - set some sort of floor based on quantity of drugs so that there's greater differentiation between users who deal to feed their addiction and real dealers, fine. But that's only going to help people on the margins - it's not going to get millions of people out of the system. And it's going to put petty criminals back on the street to commit more petty crime. I think you have to have at least the threat of prison to keep those people in rehab programs.

 

[Spartanmack]

by he way, I forgot to point out those numbers above indicate more than half of the people who have drugs charges as their most serious charge received probation - so most of these nonviolent offenders aren't even getting locked up. have a nice vacation.

 

[KAWDUP]

oh, it's just a bunch of people who know nothing about drugs lecturing everyone else on what the problem is.

back to sleep... wake me up when football starts.
mZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzZZZZzzZzzzzzz

Oh, no lecture, just a shout out to let you completely embarrass yourself about your complete lack of caring for a real social problem.

We always need to hear the elitist solution to get a laugh - ya got one?

 

[tigermud]

on and on it goes

http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/...rt-1-dead-officer-involved-shooting/88689152/

The globalists benefit the most from all this crap.

 

[Spartanmack]

on and on it goes

http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/...rt-1-dead-officer-involved-shooting/88689152/

The globalists benefit the most from all this crap.

Interesting how the piece leaves out the racist motivation of the crowd and the targeting of white people for assault. It also doesn't say that the officer who shot the criminal was black, not that it matters to BLM protestors, whitey has to pay. This is what racism in America looks like...

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/08/14/milwaukee-riot-beating-every-white-person/

meanwhile in Chicago a thirteen year old record for most people killed in a day is broken.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...adliest-day-13-years-city-spirals-out-control

 

[tomdalton22]

Interesting how the piece leaves out the racist motivation of the crowd and the targeting of white people for assault. It also doesn't say that the officer who shot the criminal was black, not that it matters to BLM protestors, whitey has to pay. This is what racism in America looks like...

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/08/14/milwaukee-riot-beating-every-white-person/

meanwhile in Chicago a thirteen year old record for most people killed in a day is broken.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...adliest-day-13-years-city-spirals-out-control

pathetic. Who are the biggest racists again?

 

[tinselwolverine]

All the reports I've heard reported that the officer was also black, and the guy who was shot was armed.

 

[tomdalton22]

All the reports I've heard reported that the officer was also black, and the guy who was shot was armed.

Nefataria Gordon said she knew the man who had been killed by the officer. "He was a nice, good person. He was really respected. That's why everyone came out. They're angry."

 

[tinselwolverine]

Nefataria Gordon said she knew the man who had been killed by the officer. "He was a nice, good person. He was really respected. That's why everyone came out. They're angry."

Well, Nefataria Gordon has been known to say a lot of things.

Nefataria Gordon once claimed she had shoved sixty Hostess Twinkies into her mouth at one time.

Really, it was like, three.

 

[tomdalton22]

From Journal Sentinel

The man shot and killed by a Milwaukee police officer Saturday was charged last year in a shooting and then charged with trying to intimidate a witness in that shooting.

Sylville Smith, 23, was fatally shot after he refused to drop a gun, which was loaded with 23 rounds, police said.

Smith had been in trouble with the law dating back at least to 2011, according to arrest records released by the Milwaukee County Sheriff's Office late Sunday. He was arrested or ticketed nine times in that period — for the shooting, a robbery, carrying a concealed weapon, theft, possession of heroin and more. His most recent arrest was July 22 for possession of cocaine, records show.


Just think...if we would have treated this young man for addiction none of this would have happened. Another innocent black youth gunned down by the police when all he needed was treatment.

 

[tinselwolverine]

What are you gonna do?

Dude is pulled over and his response is to jump out of his car and wave around a gun.

 

[Spartanmack]

Well, Nefataria Gordon has been known to say a lot of things.

Nefataria Gordon once claimed she had shoved sixty Hostess Twinkies into her mouth at one time.

Really, it was like, three.

Twinkie could be code for an Asian person that acts like a honky - yellow on the outside, white on the inside. I learned that from my buddy who calls himself the Korean Kowboy, so I think it's legit. They're little fuqrs, but still, 60 is a lot.

 

[Michchamp]

I see the board's racists have a huge collective hard on b/c of Milwaukee. oh boy, all your prejudices were "correct" all along.

where's the klan rally tonight, fellas?