a portrait - Ellen DeGeneres

On 5/8/2010 12:06 AM, tony cooper wrote:
On Fri, 7 May 2010 21:08:50 -0400, "Peter"
wrote:


Any drug can be abused. Certain drugs, such as crystal meth and H have
little or no known medical value. I also agree that substantial crime is
associated with illegal drug use. While I can't cite statistics, I think
that if distribution and use of certain drugs

That's the part that bothers me about legalization of marijuana. The
rules would creep. Once marijuana is legal, it would be easier to get
other drugs on the list.

You mean like tobacco and alcohol being legal makes it "easier to get
other drugs on the list"?

that have legitimate medical uses, such as marijuana,

C'mon, now. What's the real need for medical use of marijuana?
One-tenth of one percent of the potential users? Yeah, it's helpful
to glaucoma sufferers and chronic pain victims, but so are other -
legal - drugs.

My parents used to feel the same way you did. I had to struggle to keep
a straight face watching my 70 year old mother light a pipe full of weed
for my father when he was dying of cancer. And it did seem to help him.

were legal, there would be a lower prison
population.

On Fri, 7 May 2010 21:46:33 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

So in my experience I would say, in California anyway, parolees out
number those on probation.

That doesn't appear to be so.

According to the National Institute of Corrections, there are 353,969
adult probationers in California and 123,764 parolees. That's almost
3 probationers to 1 parolee. You are far above the national average
in parolees.

The same source shows that Florida's figures are 274,079 probationers
in Florida and 4,654 parolees. That's about 55 probationers to 1
parolee. We are far below the national average in parolees.

http://www.nicic.org/features/statestats/?State=CA













Parole is an early release from prison based on the the credits earned
while incarcerated.
Technically paroled inmates are still under the control and custody of
the Department of Corrections, Paroles is a branch of the Department of
Corrections.
In California those who discharge their sentence directly from prison
are very few.
There are three groups of inmates this applies to.
The most common group are some high notoriety sex offenders who are
unable to be placed in a community without the NIMBY crowd getting
vocal. So they end up serving their entire sentence in prison and the
Law demands their release. I know of at least 8 such inmates who were
then provided housing on prison property before being allowed to move
out of state, or to a community where their pending release had been
less publicized.
Then there are those who due to in-custody behavior issues loose
credits and end up serving their entire sentence. Depending on their
crime, they may still be subject to registration, and will be advised
as to civil restrictions applying to felons.

...and finally there are PRTC or Parolees Returned to Custody. This
group is subject to control of the Board of Prison Terms, and can be
returned to prison on parole violations until they have served out the
remainder of their sentence, provided they have not been charged and
convicted of another crime.
For example let us say we have an inmate serving a 6 year term for his
first time in prison. He will get "day for day" effectively giving him
3 years off his sentence. He paroles after 3 years and 6 weeks into his
parole he violates parole and is sent back to prison for 9 months. He
paroles again, and violates again, this time being returned for a year.
He paroles for a third time, goes out to celebrate and is violated for
public intoxication. He is returned to prison as a violator to serve
out the remainder of his sentence. He cannot be held beyond that time.

Usually many of these guys end up committing new crimes and are career
criminals

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 16:54:30 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:


.....

Be careful what you ask for.....The socialists will take away all your money
and give it to the "Poor", unless they are true libertarians........


If they take away all my money, then I will be poor and they will give
me money.

On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 07:55:28 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


....

Homosexuals continue to have the same rights as anyone else as far as
marriage is concerned. No more and no less. I have not heard of anyone's
being denied the right to marry on the grounds that he or she is a
homosexual. Have you?


A homosexual who is denied the right marry a person of their own
gender has their personal rights violated in exactly the same manner
as a heterosexual person who is denied tohe right to marry a person of
a different race. In many states for many years interracial marriages
were not recognized as being truly a "marriage" under the law. Now we
know better and the legal definition of marriage has been expanded to
include interracial couples. Similarly further expanding the law to
now include same sex couples is exactly the same process. Contrary to
the desires of social conservatives to live in the never-existant
mythological land portrayed by Norman Rockwell, society evolves. We
can learn to recognize when traditional values perpetuate injustice
and can take steps to redefine the formal matrix of society in order
to correct them. Laws that include same-sex marriage on an equal
footing with opposite sex marriage in every respect reflect social
institutions evolving to be more inclusive and humane. Societies that
do not continue to evolve, die out.

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010050718385297801-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2010-05-07 18:08:50 -0700, "Peter" said:

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010050717590918024-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2010-05-07 17:31:55 -0700, tony cooper
said:

On Fri, 7 May 2010 09:47:35 -0400, "Peter"
wrote:

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 6 May 2010 23:50:11 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

I don't agree there, either. A person is, or is not, a convicted
felon. Certain crimes are designated as felonies. We don't need
another layer of government to decide if this convicted felon
should
or should not be treated differently from that convicted felon.

If circumstances of the crime have a bearing on sentencing why
should
they
not have bearing on restoration of privelleges.

1. Who is going to decide?

2. The sentencing is set before the felon goes to jail. Any
restoration of privileges has be determined after the felon is
released and is off parole and probation and based partially on the
person's behavior while incarcerated and on parole or probation.
This
means the setting up of some sort of review board that does not
presently exist.

I should think at least the preliminary work could be done as part
of the
parole process. Whatever they need to consider during that, should
have
some
bearing on the question of restoration of rights later.

You can't add to the workload without adding to the work staff.
Prisons are presently over-crowded and understaffed.


I wonder how many are in prision because of the marijuana and/or the
Rockefeller drug laws.
Wouldn't reformation of those laws lighten the work load?

Marijuana offenses range from a misdemeanor to a felony. Whether or
not you agree with the laws in this regard, you *know* what the
penalties are. Almost all of the people in jail or prison for
possession/dealing/growth made a decision to take a chance on going to
jail or prison. That's on them.

Yes, reducing the penalties would reduce the number of people in jail
and prison. Reducing the use would do the same thing.

Misdemeanor offenders go to jail, by the way. Offenders are sent to
jail for one year or less, and to prison for a longer sentence. (Not
all jurisdictions draw the line quite so sharply, though.)

I don't have strong feelings either way or de-criminalizing marijuana.
I see points on both sides of that issue. Given the right to vote on
the issue, I'd vote for de-criminalization but I wouldn't lead any
movement to do so. 'Course I don't use the stuff so I don't have a
dog in that fight.

Once more, I can only speak for the current situation in California.
Here marijuana possession for personal use usually ends up in a Court
ordered "Diversion" program. That diverts the subject to a substance
abuse program, usually non-residential, which he/she has a year to
complete. With a certificate of completion the Court will expunge the
conviction from his/her record.
Many of these folks get second and third chances, provided there are no
other crimes committed.
In the area of dealing in quantities of more than an ounce of marijuana,
the Feds get involved.

Our big problems are crystal meth, heroin, and powder & crack cocaine.
There is a myth that the prisons are filled with misunderstood,
persecuted 60's hippie type pot smokers. Certainly there is a drug
connection to many crimes, but those drugs are mostly crystal meth,
heroin and the real biggie, alcohol. Few are serving time for the drug
use alone. There is usually a primary violent or property crime which
goes along with the drug use.
Of those drug users some have serious drug abuse issues, but for the
most part their drug and alcohol use is not driven by their poor social
environment as many would have you believe, they are actually
responsible for getting where they are by being criminals. The drug use
is a smoke screen, so to speak.



Any drug can be abused. Certain drugs, such as crystal meth and H have
little or no known medical value. I also agree that substantial crime is
associated with illegal drug use. While I can't cite statistics, I think
that if distribution and use of certain drugs that have legitimate
medical uses, such as marijuana, were legal, there would be a lower
prison population.

Again, the numbers incarcerated purely for either possession and/or
dealing in marijuana in California are surprisingly small. Those who have
had such a poor defense to end up in prison, could be kicked out of the
California prisons today, and we would still make very little progress in
reducing the prison population. Marijuana is well on the way to being
decriminalized in California. However the Feds are not being so
charitable.

So what is the answer?
We have vested interests in seeing the prison industry grow. We have a
social dichotomy over whether prisons should be purely punitative, or serve
as rehabilitation facilities, or both. We do not have the monies to pay for
rehabilitation and we do not have the monies to pay for pure incarceration.

Most people do not act criminally unless it is socially acceptable to do so.
What are these people learning at home.


You have to see the violence tied to the meth & crack trade to truly
understand. The use of the drug plays a small part in why these
individuals are incarcerated. Control of the street level trade and
territorial street & prison gangs are the big players in filling
California prisons. Drug use/abuse is secondary.


I've read about the violence. I have no intention of getting so close that I
see it personally.

--
Peter

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010050721303838981-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2010-05-07 21:00:52 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:


I seriously object to your concept that the right wingers in California
voted for the three strikes law. Since when did the "right wingers" have
any say at all over what laws got on the books in California? I preached
against the concept that you could replace a 125 K a year judge with a
secretary and a computer for many years when I lived in that state. But
after 40 years there, I can safely say that there was no law that I voted
for that wasn't voted down by the populace and visa-versa. A conservative
living in California was the equivalent of being disenfranchised.

It is not my "concept" it is fact.

The California "Three Strikes Law" was the result of a Voter Initiative
(Proposition 184) put on the ballot in 1994 by one Mike Reynolds, who had
been campaigning for it for year since his daughter was murdered by a
parolee. It won with 72% of the vote, and it was badly written law.
There was much publicity and reaction due to the kidnapping and murder of
Polly Klass (do you remember her?) by Richard Allen Davis, a parolee in
1994. He became the poster boy for this initiative and the right-wing
voters pushed it through without thought of the cost.

The author of the Law was one Bill Jones, Republican, California
Assemblyman, and losing opponent to your pal Barbara Boxer in the Senate
race in 2004. He is currently involved with private company voting
services as a consultant to Sequoia Voting Systems. A fine upstanding
right-wing Republican. He would be very upset to hear you think he is a
"Liberal" law maker.


Please don't bother him with facts.
Mr. Grahm is not a true conservative. I seriously question whether he
understands, or would admit he understands, the difference between true
conservatives and wing nuts.


--
Peter

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
Peter wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
. ..
Peter wrote:
"Steve House" wrote in message
"Neil Harrington"

Judges change with the political winds. Unfortunately, supreme
courts do
as
well, but nothing in the U.S. Constitution supports the notion of
same-sex
"marriage." And I daresay it never will.

The Constitution does not "support" same-sex marriage nor does it
need
to. What is more important is it does not PROHIBIT same sex
marriage.
But it does prohibit the Federal and State from enacting laws that
violate fundamental human rights.

Which CLAUSE says that?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not
be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
9th Amendment

No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws.
14th Amendment

The Ninth amendment is not a source of rights. It is a rule about how
to
read the Constitution.

Nonsense.

read the Constitution. See Lash, Kurt T. (2009). The Lost History of
the
Ninth Amendment. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195372611. Then after
you
have read that book, report back and apologize.

Gullible idiot.



About the level of intelligence I should have expected from you.

Bye

BTW If you had the same response after reading my references, I might
have respect for you.

Peter, you should have no thought of respecting Ray Fischer -- he is a
complete nincompoop and a waste of time. He's been in my kill file for a
year or so and he belongs in yours too.

Ray has been in my kill file for over a year, and Peter has recently
joined him.....:^)

Oh, why Peter? He doesn't seem like a bad sort.

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 7 May 2010 21:08:50 -0400, "Peter"
wrote:


Any drug can be abused. Certain drugs, such as crystal meth and H have
little or no known medical value. I also agree that substantial crime is
associated with illegal drug use. While I can't cite statistics, I think
that if distribution and use of certain drugs

That's the part that bothers me about legalization of marijuana. The
rules would creep. Once marijuana is legal, it would be easier to get
other drugs on the list.


Do you remember the Vietnam domino theory?

that have legitimate medical uses, such as marijuana,

C'mon, now. What's the real need for medical use of marijuana?
One-tenth of one percent of the potential users? Yeah, it's helpful
to glaucoma sufferers and chronic pain victims, but so are other -
legal - drugs.


Marijuana is the only substance that has been shown to provide a high degree
of relief from many of the side effects of chemotherapy.
I had a friend who had a fatal neurological disease that caused, paralysis
accompanied by chronic sever pain. He had a life expectancy of no more than
ninety days. Under medical guidelines he could only receive moderate
narcotic doses, because they did not want him to become addicted.


--
Peter

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
Peter wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
Peter wrote:
"Steve House" wrote in message
"Neil Harrington"

Judges change with the political winds. Unfortunately, supreme
courts do
as
well, but nothing in the U.S. Constitution supports the notion of
same-sex
"marriage." And I daresay it never will.

The Constitution does not "support" same-sex marriage nor does it
need
to. What is more important is it does not PROHIBIT same sex
marriage.
But it does prohibit the Federal and State from enacting laws that
violate fundamental human rights.

Which CLAUSE says that?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not
be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
9th Amendment

No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws.
14th Amendment

The Ninth amendment is not a source of rights. It is a rule about how
to
read the Constitution.

Nonsense.

read the Constitution. See Lash, Kurt T. (2009). The Lost History of
the
Ninth Amendment. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195372611. Then after
you
have read that book, report back and apologize.

Gullible idiot.



About the level of intelligence I should have expected from you.

Bye

BTW If you had the same response after reading my references, I might
have respect for you.

Peter, you should have no thought of respecting Ray Fischer -- he is a
complete nincompoop and a waste of time. He's been in my kill file for a
year or so and he belongs in yours too.

Ray has been in my kill file for over a year, and Peter has recently
joined him.....:^)

Oh, why Peter? He doesn't seem like a bad sort.


I called him out one too many times.

--
Peter

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
news
Peter wrote:
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"David Ruether" wrote in message
...



Unless they are suddenly afflicted by a severe attack of Humpty
Dumptyism (or a couple more Obama radical-lib appointees, which
effectively amounts to the same thing), they will not.


Exactly which "radical-lib" was appointed by our President?

Obviously, Sotomayor.

Which decision[s] made prior to appointment, of his one appointee
do you object to?

Most famously, her ruling against white firefighters in New Haven, on
purely racist grounds. She was then and undoubtedly still is in
favor of discriminating against white males. That ruling of hers was
of course overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. Now she's part of
that court, which is bad news for anyone who cares about justice.

The "wise Latina woman" remains what she always has been, in favor of
preferential treatment for certain races and genders, such as her
own. She has as much as said she wants to use the court for her own
political agenda, rather than to support the Constitution as it
stands. She made a joke of it on at least one occasion.


That's what I thought you were talking about. Her original decision,
which was fortunately overturned, was based upon precedents that
existed at the time of her decision.

What precedents?

The ones upholding affirmative action. I'm sure you were aware that in
Ricci she ruled against white and Hispanic firefighters. Acccording to my
notes, she is Hispanic. Your statement that she gave preferential
treatment to Hispanic people is contrary to the decision you are relying
on.

You are correct, but there were seventeen whites and ONE Hispanic. I had
forgotten the one Hispanic. Mea culpa. It was still mainly a ruling against
white firefighters, based on their race. And I don't know about precedents
"upholding affirmative action." Precedents have been mixed, I think.

In any case her ruling was sublimely stupid and completely racist.




That decision doesn't make her a
racist. We will have to wait and see her subsequent decisions.

I think she's already made it clear what she is. Of course she downplayed
her agenda during confirmation, as anyone with that sort of agenda would.

At the risk of starting a flame war, I agree with the the decision
that , race or ethnicity should never be a factor in hiring. Having
said that, my comment only applies if the hiring tests are not
skewed. e.g. if an "intelligence" test included a ;question on the
meaning of "pants on the ground" it would be skewed.

I believe the claims that certain population groups consistently score
lower on intelligence tests because the tests are "skewed" has been
pretty well debunked.

When? Citation please.

I can't provide you with any off hand; it is my impression from what I've
read about the subject over the years. IQ tests are not supposed to be based
on one's knowledge or schooling, and I am not aware of any proof that they
are, or on any other factor that would skew them in favor of some race or
other population group.