Reply With Quote
Would the President pardon all the people in jail if marijuana was de-criminalized?
Would the President pardon all the people in jail if marijuana was de-criminalized?
probably not, the PIC would lose $Bs
something like this is about to happen in California. Proposition 47 passed and makes personal drug possession cases misdemeanors.
http://www.latimes.com/local/politic...ry.html#page=1Los Angeles County Public Defender Ron Brown walked into a Pomona court Wednesday and saw first-hand the impact of Proposition 47 — the voter-approved initiative that reduces penalties for drug possession and other nonviolent crimes.
His office had deliberately postponed sentencing for a defendant facing more than a year behind bars for possessing heroin and methamphetamine to the day after Tuesday's election, waiting to see what voters would do.
The gambit worked. The man was sentenced and released from custody with no further jail time.
"They were felonies yesterday. They're misdemeanors today," Brown said. "This is the law now."
The day after California voted to reduce punishments, police agencies, defense attorneys, prosecutors and even some advocates were scrambling to figure out exactly how it was going to work.
The greatest effect, experts said, would be in drug possession cases, noting that California is now the first state in the nation to downgrade those cases from felonies to misdemeanors. Thousands of felons are now eligible for immediate release from prisons and jails.
people can make a difference, boutons. our corporate overlords don't decide everything -- sometimes the little guy wins. big win for the little guy in California yesterday.
yes, chevron got beat in Richmond. but it's VERY BLUE California, offset by blue OR and WA getting beat by BigFood over GMO labelling.
"people" making a "rare" diff is the exception that proves the rule that the 1%/BigCorp run the USA for their own benefit by owning legislators at all levels.
USA is an oligarchy, as this election demonstrated ever more indisputably, thanks, VRWC/Repugs and their SCOTUS5 puppets and extreme conservative judges everywhere (eg 5th circuit/NO).
USA is a plutocracy with nearly every candidate for Congress running for office to get (more) wealthy, NOT to serve the country.
Avg net wealth in plutocratic Congress is now over $1M.
But don't fret, those below $1M are on their inevitable way UP. http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014...-million-plus/
Human-Americans, not having $Bs to spend on lobbyists, "win" a of a lot less than Corporate-Americans.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 11-06-2014 at 12:49 PM.
The drug possessions being reduced was great, but what many didn't know about this proposition was what else was reduced. Stealing guns is now just a misdemeanor.
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/...-rebuttals.htm
Prop. 47 will require the release of thousands of dangerous inmates. Felons with prior convictions for armed robbery, kidnapping, carjacking, child abuse, residential burglary, arson, assault with a deadly weapon, and many other serious crimes will be eligible for early release under Prop. 47. These early releases will be virtually mandated by Proposition 47. While Prop. 47's backers say judges will be able to keep dangerous offenders from being released early, this is simply not true. Prop. 47 prevents judges from blocking the early release of prisoners except in very rare cases. For example, even if the judge finds that the inmate poses a risk of committing crimes like kidnapping, robbery, assault, spousal abuse, torture of small animals, carjacking or felonies committed on behalf of a criminal street gang, Proposition 47 requires their release.
Prop. 47 would eliminate automatic felony prosecution for stealing a gun. Under current law, stealing a gun is a felony, period. Prop. 47 would redefine grand theft in such a way that theft of a firearm could only be considered a felony if the value of the gun is greater than $950. Almost all handguns (which are the most stolen kind of firearm) retail for well below $950. People don't steal guns just so they can add to their gun collection. They steal guns to commit another crime. People stealing guns are protected under Proposition 47.
Prop. 47 undermines laws against sex-crimes. Proposition 47 will reduce the penalty for possession of drugs used to facilitate date-rape to a simple misdemeanor. No matter how many times the suspected sexual predator has been charged with possession of date-rape drugs, it will only be a misdemeanor, and the judge will be forced to sentence them as if it were their very first time in court.
So let me get this straight. You rely on the meme of 'guns don't commit crimes people do' yet you post this about how roofies could be used for date rape and therefor need to be regulated more?
Your critical thinking skills on display once more.
Where did I mention roofies? I specifically commented on stolen guns. Do you think it was wise to attach a misdemeanor charge for a stolen gun to this proposition?
I can only smh.
TSA posting without reading what he is quoting. Last paragraph of your quote, dip . I'll help since you are so slow and limited:
You even italicized some it it seems.Prop. 47 undermines laws against sex-crimes. Proposition 47 will reduce the penalty for possession of drugs used to facilitate date-rape to a simple misdemeanor. No matter how many times the suspected sexual predator has been charged with possession of date-rape drugs, it will only be a misdemeanor, and the judge will be forced to sentence them as if it were their very first time in court.
Talk about smh. I copied and pasted the cons from the CA voters guide, I didn't italicize anything. Had you clicked the link I wouldn't need to explain this. I specifically mentioned the reduction from auto felony to misdemeanor for stealing a gun. Now again, do you think it was wise to attach the change to misdemeanor charge for a stolen gun to this proposition?
TSA posting without reading what he is quoting. Last paragraph of your quote, dip . I'll help since you are so slow and limited:
You even italicized some it it seems.
So you quote things that you don't actually believe but give no qualification beforehand of such.
My point is still valid, dip . You are posting something that s all over your 'guns don't kill, people do' meme.
I am not going to discuss gun control with you, dip . We already know your position.
You are just grasping for straws now. I specifically spoke of the stolen gun charges.
You don't have point though, you continue to ramble and get off track. You are harping on my quoting of all the cons, big ing deal, I specifically said the reduction of charges for gun theft to misdemeanor was a problem. This doesn't on my stance in any way whatsoever. I've always been against criminals acquiring guns, why would it be a good idea to now slap them with a misdemeanor for stealing a gun. Why do you continue to dodge my question? Did you even know this was part of the proposition?My point is still valid, dip . You are posting something that s all over your 'guns don't kill, people do' meme.
I am not going to discuss gun control with you, dip . We already know your position.
Once again, do you think it was wise to attach the reduction to misdemeanor charge for a stolen gun to this proposition, yes or no?
Let's try this again pea brain.
You can call me a pea brain all you like but it is quite clear that you quote things without having read and/or understanding them.
That it took you hours to finally get it right just speaks to your limitations further.
This is not the first time I have pointed out. If pointing out how your methodology is unreliable and you are not credible is grasping at straws then so be it. You are still not reliable and lack credibility.
You are just being a coward and grasping at straws, simple as that.
My first sentence in this thread clearly states that with this proposition passed, "the drug possession being reduced was great, but what many didn't know about this proposition was what else was reduced. Stealing guns is now just a misdemeanor".
Why are you so hung up that I posted the entirety of the cons listed in the voters guide? I never brought them up or argued they were also a negative about this proposition. The fact that this is all you have left to argue, without ONCE addressing my concerns with this proposition is quite telling. You are a ing pea brain who just wants to win another internet battle, you are truly pathetic.
It shouldn't have taken hours to get to this point, your pea brain should have realized I was concerned about the stolen gun charge being reduced to a misdemeanor, being that it was the only ing thing I brought up. For s sake set your fragile internet ego aside and address the issue at hand.
Were you aware prop 47 also reduced a stolen gun charge (previously an automatic felony) to a misdemeanor, yes or no?
It didn't take me an hour to realize that you are fixated on gun laws. Nonetheless
You quoted the portion about roofies. It is what it is.
It is very clear that you did not read what you had quoted. It is what it is.
Your lack of reading and critical thinking skills speak to your credibility. It is what it is.
I don't give a about CA theft laws. It is what it is.
Why do you continue to dodge the question coward?
I live in CA and voted on this proposition you stupid of course I read and knew the proposition. Why do you think I brought up the negative aspect that no one here was talking about. You clearly knew nothing about this prop and obviously care too much some Internet beef with me you are willing to make yourself look like a complete dip instead of just admitting you were wrong. Nothing new though.
Lack of reading and critical thinking skills, the ing irony. Go sit in the corner until you are ready to discuss the issue.
So says the one fixated by which mediums alcohol advertises in.
Just because I did not answer the question in the manner that you would like does not mean that I did not answer the question. Your premise is as usual is .
I don't give a about CA gun theft classification although to my understanding all it does is remove the special classification of firearms and makes it like most other properties in the $950 felony threshold.
This thread is about the pot initiatives across the country. Maybe start your own thread?
You didn't answer the question period. Back in the corner you go.
"Did you know about the gun law changes in CA?" asked dip .
"I don't give a about the gun laws in CA," Fuzzy answered.
Your stupidity is boring again. I have to hold your hand through things middle schoolers grasp on the first read through.
Now that I've got your hand I'll ask again. Do you support proposition 47 decriminalizing drug charges and at the same time also decriminalizing gun theft charges?
That is not decriminalization.
I don't give a about CA gun theft classification although to my understanding all it does is remove the special classification of firearms and makes it like most other properties in the $950 felony threshold.guns are not treated differently than other properties.
There are all kinds of online resources that can help you with your reading and critical thinking. I answered your question several posts ago and you were not able to discern that. You were unable to determine that stealing guns would still be a criminal act or did not understand the meaning of the word decriminalize despite the simple prefix "de-" giving a very easy context clue.
It is obvious the CA education system did you a serious disservice.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
