Then the solution is to increase the sentence for murderers, not reduce sentences for armed drug dealers
That's not right.....the only thing wrong here is that murderers' sentences are always TOO lenient....
The question is who gets to decide minimum sentences in this country. Our legislatures or our judges?
We'd better leave it to the legislatures. They may not always get it right, but I bet they do as well as the judges would.
Oh yes you do. Not only that, but pot supports the Taliban, and other Islamic terrorists who shoot at our troops with bullets paid for with the money they make off this stuff.
So, if you think smoking pot is harmless, think again. This guy was a pot dealer, who also had firearms offences and was involved in money laundering. He wasn't just a "harmless" pot smoker.
The penalty seems to be not for the drugs, but for the gun while selling drugs.
I think the same argument applies that I use in response to death penalty opponents-- these harsh sentences are pretty easy to avoid: don't commit the crime. I don't really care, as a substantive matter, how much pot people own, sell or smoke, as long as I don't have to bear the costs of that use. But before you make the CHOICE to buy, sell or use a substance known to be illegal, you are obligated to check the consequences of getting caught with the contraband and while possessing a firearm. Harsh penalty? Yes. Avoidable? Yes.
Perhaps legislatures have overreacted and will revisit the issue. Just as soon as they do, you can bet liberal judges will return to dumping felons unpunished back into society.