Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
i don't know who this visser is, but does he have the "I'm my own separate branch of government" defense?

As a U.S. Senator, probably not.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why? Ned Flanders confesses to stepping on daisies.

Why must you disrespect men of religious faith by confusing them for cartoon caricatures? Why, bilmore, why?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Why would I care? Ty asked the question, and I think it was rhetorical.

I don't want Burger's fancy words like "racketeering" mean. I just don't get why they'd go after the madam but not the john.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Why must you disrespect men of religious faith by confusing them for cartoon caricatures? Why, bilmore, why?

Since Bill Clinton, have their been any Ds caught in a sex scandal? They always seem to be the religious right types.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't want Burger's fancy words like "racketeering" mean. I just don't get why they'd go after the madam but not the john.

She's the big fish. If you're a prosecutor, wouldn't you be more interested in putting one person away on a large RICO count, or in chasing down hundreds of people whose happy ending won't be that for either a fine or a couple of months in the pokey?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
This pisses me off.

Don't get me started on Bush and stem cell research again. I'm too busy this month.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Are you saying this because it's DC? Or as a general principle? If Ty's point is "why isn't this investigation going after everybody connected with this business" one answer is that it's a federal racketeering investigation, not a local vice squad case.

Ah. No, I was just asking because I didn't understand the federal connection, and didn't know that the Madam was facing a RICO rap.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
She's the big fish. If you're a prosecutor, wouldn't you be more interested in putting one person away on a large RICO count, or in chasing down hundreds of people whose happy ending won't be that for either a fine or a couple of months in the pokey?

Who said you have the choose? Prosecutors seem to be OK with nailing drug users *and* dealers.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I just don't get why they'd go after the madam but not the john.

Why do they (generally) go after the dealers and not the customers?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Who said you have the choose? Prosecutors seem to be OK with nailing drug users *and* dealers.

When? The only time users are prosecuted is when they have sufficient quantity that they're presumed to be dealing.

And limited prosectorial resources require choosing. Every lawyer in DC wouldn't be enough to prosecute all the crimes that occur here.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
When? The only time users are prosecuted is when they have sufficient quantity that they're presumed to be dealing.

Hence all the excess capacity in prisons across the land?

If you're making a DC-specific point, I defer to your knowledge and expertise. Mine was more conceptual.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Hence all the excess capacity in prisons across the land?

Are you saying that the majority of drug offenders in prison are there simply for possession/use? I suspect you're wrong, if you are. Rather, they're low level couriers and dealers.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Are you saying that the majority of drug offenders in prison are there simply for possession/use? I suspect you're wrong, if you are. Rather, they're low level couriers and dealers.

I looked around for some stats, but couldn't come up with anything; however, there were many articles and discussions regarding California prop 36 (passed in 2000) and the very large number of California inmates doing time "only" for possession of small amounts of drugs. The discussions around prop 36 may be informing Ty's views of who's going to jail for drug cirmes.

While it is undoubtedly true that a large number of inmates are doing time based on a conviction for mere drug possession, what they were convicted of does not answer the question of where they were in the distribution chain. If they're even part-time dealers or couriers (or living or traveling with someone who is), then it's not the same thing.

I would be surprised if there really a large number of pure consumers (those who do not manufacture, sell or otherwise provide drugs to others) who are convicted of felonies. Maybe that's because there aren't that the percentage of users who really fit that category is small, but I haven't heard anyone make that argument.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
i don't know who this visser is, but does he have the "I'm my own separate branch of government" defense?

You can see him here, going on about the sanctity of marriage.

According to Vitter, the best predictor of whether a person will have a positive or negative influence in society is the presence of a "nurturing" marriage.

I guess he just wasn't nurtured enough, aye? And it made him go off and do these awful things.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Are you saying that the majority of drug offenders in prison are there simply for possession/use? I suspect you're wrong, if you are. Rather, they're low level couriers and dealers.

Setting aside the question of how you'd distinguish between those simply in possession and couriers, that was my impression. I'm not sure how to figure out whether that's true, though.