First, the CIA has no official policy of dealing drugs. What individual agents do for any agency on their own time is up to them. I used to work for the state of California, and from time to time other state employees will break laws. It doesn't mean the state had anything to do with those crimes. If a Sears employee sells drugs, does that mean Sears is responsible?

Second, there's no evidence that individual CIA agents (not ex-agents) distributed drugs. If I am mistaken and you think there were then please supply the names and evidence.

Third, I didn't claim that governments hostile to the USA are necessarily bad and had to be taken down, but often the two go hand-in-hand. Taking down governments often backfires, so I don't recommend it. But if the president and Congress orders it, then it's part of the job.

Fourth, I don't have PERSONAL knowledge that Webb killed himself. I wasn't there and didn't do my own forensic investigation, but based on the available evidence, he did. Likewise, I don't have personal knowledge that Abraham Lincoln ever lived. I never met him and there could be a giant conspiracy to make me believe that he did, but I don't think that's very likely.

Fifth, some governments are bad, not just bad to us. North Korea is bad. Iran is bad. Hamas is bad. Islamic State is bad. They are intrinsically bad because they are based on evil ideologies and treat their own people in an evil manner and cause problems for others.

Thanks Crash and BF. I think we need to remember that back in the late 1800s cocaine was sold in sodas (Coke and Pepsi anyone?). People have always done drugs, but people have never been FORCED to take them. If someone poured out several pounds of the purest, best cocaine in the universe on to my dining room table and told me to take as much as I wanted, I wouldn't take any because it doesn't interest me.

To get back to the original topic of mass incarceration, let's look at the question in a different way. Let's say there was MORE mass incarceration and it was done properly (only the guilty are convicted and the penalty matches the crime). What would this mean? More criminal off the street. It seems that the communities suffering the most from crime would also BENEFIT the most from mass incarceration. Wouldn't the law-abiding be better off without criminals preying on them? Especially those who struggle to make ends meet who can't afford to have their cars stolen or homes burglarized. If schools ejected bullies, wouldn't that make schools safer, and wouldn't that make the kids who attend them safer? If more criminal were in prison, then businesses wouldn't be afraid to open up in poorer communities and more jobs would be created. I think we all need to re-examine our beliefs on this.

We need "get-tough" on crime policies, but they have to be fair and accurate. They also have to be moral and require community support. Schools have to suspend and expel bullies and thugs. Schools have to be safe. More cops need to work in bad neighborhoods, and local communities need their own armed and deputized citizen patrols. I don't agree with the Nation of Islam, but if the Nation of Islam started patrolling Chicago with legal carry permits I bet Chicago would be much safer. If churches and good citizens did the same, even better. The feds and/or states also need to audit local high-crime government to see if city and county leaders aren't stealing government money meant to help citizens ends up in their pockets. Several Detroit leaders stole thousands meant for poor schools that needed the money. A city can't thrive if it's run by crooks. At the same time, citizens shouldn't knowingly vote in crooks, like they did in Washington DC (Marion Berry). I would also support decriminalizing all drugs for home use (not at work, not in school and not while driving). Police need to focus on violent crimes and property crimes, not usage "crimes."

yeah, Ivy this is one of those cases where you post something , I comment and challenge some of it....using YOUR state as a recent example of people changing their views about these laws.

I'm the second poster in this thread....yet if you addressed what I wrote in the 2nd and 3rd posts in this thread I must have missed it.

The mandatory minimums were reversed/abolished in YOUR state.

http://www.crj.org/news/entry/utah-passes-epic-criminal-justice-reform-legislation

I brought it up....posted article about it and you made the choice to not comment.

Again, I don't know what you're looking for. If I had just posted my own view or opinion on the issue, rather than an article, you may have a point. But what does you taking issue with the article have to do with me? I'm not sure the article's findings apply across the board in every state but I found it interesting considering how often it's claimed that our prisons are full of people who had a little bit of weed on them or drug users who just need help.

This is the main problem in most countries where weed is considered highly illegal. I know one country where if you get caught with 1 gram of weed, the government will prosecute you with using, production and selling of narcotics with immediately putting you in custody for 30 days until trial

@ivyleague


Are you really clueless to the fact that our own government lets drugs into the country

Alabama has weed laws similar to some of these countries. That state is going to get left behind as America moves into the 21st century. They might as well just make it a confederate state, and then Hillary can build a wall around it.

Hillary hates walls

Kinda off topic but still related the DOJ itself admits about 10% of those incarcerated in America are innocent.

A statistic that should send a chill down the spine of any American citizen.

Think about it. Based on our current prison population thats about 220,000 people. ~Shudders~

Dont forget everyone on probation and parole

Great point. That effectively more than doubles the number. JFC. Land of the free...

President of the Philippines snubbed and insulted Obama, so now the press is highlighting the measures that he's taking to stop drug trade in his country.

http://time.com/4478954/philippines-rodrigo-duterte-drug-war-vigilante-killing-deaths/

Allegedly over 2,400 suspected users and dealers killed in less than three months.

I thought you were one of the fact-checkers around here. Several searches did not show the Justice Dept. coming up with any percentage of innocent people in prison. According to the Innocence Project it's between 2.3 and 5% (which is still bad) who are innocent. In 2014 Vice magazine estimated about a maximum of 120,000, which is a little more than 5%. Again, still bad, but not as bad as 10%.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:j0S_ZGoWEskJ:www.innocenceproject.org/contact/+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

https://news.vice.com/article/why-are-there-up-to-120000-innocent-people-in-us-prisons

I didn't get my fact checking paycheck from the mods this month, so I'm on strike.

and yes, 2.5% or 5% is bad enough.

Two reasons to like the President of the Philippines.

Ivy,

I'll remember your comments the next time you feign patriotism. Foreign leader makes a vulgar comment about YOUR president, and you're fine with that.

I'll also remember this the next time you claim being about law and order. From what I read, people are being rounded up and killed without trials, hearings or anything. That sounds like the Gestapo to me.

A lot of people who claim to be about law and order are really just about order.

+1

most of the people he is killing are small time dealers who come from the slums there is people nearly starving out there very high levels of poverty alot of these people are just trying to get out.

He has also allegedly used it to kill political opponents people are not given a fair trial and alot of the big time drug traffickers for some reason have not been targeted. There has been a huge increase in murders as drug dealers become more violent and a terrorist attack since this guy has come into power.

Also these guys are one of the countrys the US has invested alot in this guy is an idiot.

And ivy how can you agree with 18year olds being executed for dealing a small amount of drugs and you know what this whole program has failed the amount of overdoses have not decreased people are still dealing and the big drug traffickers have not been target. Apparently there has been investigation showing the police have started running there own drug operations and anyone who does not work for them they just simply kill the police out there is extremely corrupt half the dealers are the police themselves.

I wasn't aware I had to defend the current schmuck in the White House at every turn to be patriotic.

And compare the drug problem in the Philippines and the US. Enough said.



I'm all for executing drug traffickers, big or small. People whine about the scourge of drugs but aren't willing to do what it takes to stop it. You can either wipe the scum off the earth, legalize drugs and only increase the amount of addicts in society, or continue with half measures like we've been for decades.

Ivy,

If a relative of yours gets arrested for possession and you get a call about it, it's safe to say that you will use your contacts and resources to bail them out and help them fight the charge.


Lock up all the drug dealers/users...until the day it hits home. Then it will be about "compassion" and "second chances"

Legalize all drugs and treat it as a medical issue and not a criminal issue.

I actually agree to a certain extent on executing dealers , just the wholesale distributors. They're the ones that is supplying the entire country.

@ivyleague

you do realize if the USA executed drug dealers that govt. agents would die

half of our doctors would die because they're "legal" drug dealers

god knows how many children are being abused in utah/northwest USA

yet you're concerned with every thing black

Just about every time this subject comes up someone will say what you just said- "Wait till it happens to someone you know." Well, it hasn't happened and it wont. So spare me your hypothetical strawman scenarios.




Then we get what we've gotten with legal alcohol and tobacco which do more damage than all the illegal drugs combined because of their availability. Now you want to legalize things like meth or heroin?



I don't know why you keep bringing up children being abused in Utah or whatever. It's like you're alluding to something but don't know how to say it because you don't know what you're talking about. And we're talking about drug traffickers in general, not just black ones. So, as usual, you're just babbling nonsense. Go stand in the corner, cook.

What has happened with alcohol and tobacco is a hell of a lot better than what's happening on the black market with drugs made illegal. Beer companies don't go to war with each other and settle disputes with violence.

The war on drugs, is really just a war on people and the market itself. More specifically a war on people's choices about their own bodies, and not through persuasion or medical intervention but through force. The ends don't justify the means.

First, it's because the war on drugs isn't being fought the right way. It's a half-measure approach destined to fail from the start. That's my point.

Second, if people who choose to use drugs were only impacting themselves, you might have a point. But we all know that's not the case.

Well, you're right and you're atleast consistent. If the government started to kill a lot of people, drug suppliers and all, it might actually work. I think that's a horrible totalitarian approach that I could never support but yeah it could put stop to much of the drug use.

Wonder how it will work out in the Philippines where President Duterte is encouraging vigilantes to kill drug dealers. I think Singapore has low rate of illicit drug use since they cane people there. For major traffickers they have the death penalty.

Ivy wants to ban all drugs and executes everyone who uses them. He's completely off the spectrum on this. What he says really doesn't matter.