California Proposition 5 (2008)

[RedSLC]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_5_(2008)

From Wikipedia:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So clearly, it's a big change to existing drug laws. I expect this to be fairly polarizing, even here on Atlas, due to how sweeping it is.

As for me, Yes (I/O).

[Cory]

Yes (D).

[AggregateDemand]

I'm all for reducing the severity of sentencing for nonviolent crimes; however, sentence reduction requires several caveats to be satisfied. First, the bill cannot be soft on drug dealing or drug production. Second, the bill cannot leave the poor in an environment of perpetual theft, which is as much a threat to their economic well-being as lack of opportunity, skills, or education.

Normally, I'd over-liberalize and then let the legislature amend, but allowing thieves and dealers to prey on low-income citizens is too much. Prop 5 doesn't look goo enough to me.

[TNF]

I'm all for reducing the severity of sentencing for nonviolent crimes; however, sentence reduction requires several caveats to be satisfied. First, the bill cannot be soft on drug dealing or drug production. Second, the bill cannot leave the poor in an environment of perpetual theft, which is as much a threat to their economic well-being as lack of opportunity, skills, or education.

Normally, I'd over-liberalize and then let the legislature amend, but allowing thieves and dealers to prey on low-income citizens is too much. Prop 5 doesn't look goo enough to me.

Not all drug dealing is equal. A working class student who sells cannabis out of his dorm room in order to help pay for books is a lot less harmful to society at-large than is Phillip-Morris, which sells a highly addictive, dangerous product with the full legal sanction of the United States government. In light of that, demanding that the law be tough on drug dealing, without any caveats, is a recipe for mass incarceration.

It's funny that you should say that any such bill would have to 'not leave the poor in an environment of perpetual theft' in order to get your support. The fact of the matter is that the poor are poor because they are perpetual victims of perpetual theft. That their employers pay them far less than the value that their labor products is a testament to that.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I don't remember this one, but pretty sure I voted yes.

[AggregateDemand]

Not all drug dealing is equal. A working class student who sells cannabis out of his dorm room in order to help pay for books is a lot less harmful to society at-large than is Phillip-Morris, which sells a highly addictive, dangerous product with the full legal sanction of the United States government. In light of that, demanding that the law be tough on drug dealing, without any caveats, is a recipe for mass incarceration.

It's funny that you should say that any such bill would have to 'not leave the poor in an environment of perpetual theft' in order to get your support. The fact of the matter is that the poor are poor because they are perpetual victims of perpetual theft. That their employers pay them far less than the value that their labor products is a testament to that.

The theft is not derived from capitalism. The theft is derived from politicians who seize property and employment opportunity because they want the political power and vanity associated with creating and administering anti-poverty programs. It's like a doctor who administers poison so he can sell the antidote. Don't worry, arsenic is definitely a cure, and you definitely need to take your dose! Vote Donkey.

I agree that drug dealing has varying degrees of severity. The proposition would need to differentiate between different types of drugs, without falling afoul of federal regulation.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

No (R).

[Bigby]

I misread this as Proposition 8 for some weird reason.

[© tweed]

as much as I hate pouring more money into rehab centers, obviously "yes"

[© tweed]

I'm all for reducing the severity of sentencing for nonviolent crimes; however, sentence reduction requires several caveats to be satisfied. First, the bill cannot be soft on drug dealing or drug production. Second, the bill cannot leave the poor in an environment of perpetual theft, which is as much a threat to their economic well-being as lack of opportunity, skills, or education.

Normally, I'd over-liberalize and then let the legislature amend, but allowing thieves and dealers to prey on low-income citizens is too much. Prop 5 doesn't look goo enough to me.

Not all drug dealing is equal.

yeah, the "drug dealer" archetype is a lingering Nixonian/Reaganite myth.. most "drug deals" take place between friends

[New_Conservative]

No (R).

Parts of the law I have problems with:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

No (R), I don't think drug sellers should have lower sentences.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Agree with it all, apart from interfering with the courts ability to punish parole violators.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_5_(2008)

From Wikipedia:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So clearly, it's a big change to existing drug laws. I expect this to be fairly polarizing, even here on Atlas, due to how sweeping it is.

As for me, Yes (I/O).

Yes on the idea, no on the actual proposition. The reason for this is to protest the ability to vote in largesse at the expense of the treasury without a requirement that a funding mechanism be attached to it.

[politicallefty]

Yes (D). It does seem like a good portion of this is now law in California. I know the last point was enacted to prevent Prop 19 from passing.

[ElectionsGuy]

No (I/O), I don't support more useless rehabilitation funding.