Funny, I've never seen anything in the 1st amendment that says "permit" to free speech.
Posted on 12/08/2002 5:49:57 AM PST by Behind Liberal Lines
Funny, I've never seen anything in the 1st amendment that says "permit" to free speech.
Get enough people together and a permit is not needed. What are they gonna do, run EVERYBODY off? I don't think so. Permit, Schmermit, it's total B.S.
Give us your thoughts on the 20,000 gun control laws and the Second Amendment.
I hope this gets plenty of publicity and the entire left hears about it. Afterall, she was supposed to be so big on the Children's Defense Fund. I think the left needs to know that she had one of theirs thrown in jail for being in the corridor instead of giving him an appointment to talk to her...
These statistics only exist when pro-legalization people "cook the books." In New York State, at least, the "non-violent drug offenders" in prison tend to actually be people who are in for second, third or even fourth offenses, and often have histories of violent crime in their records.
Interesting viewpoint. However, it appears that the Florida Department of Corrections disagrees with you (in part). Here is a posting on the Official Florida Department of Corrections website, which states:
" In fiscal year 89-90, 36.1 percent of all admissions to prison were admitted for a drug related crime. Over 16,000 inmates walked through the gates with a drug charge as the primary offense. Some of these inmates were recommitted two and three times during the same year because they were released early by the "Control Release Authority" (Parole Commission). They were considered low risk offenders in comparison to the prison population. In some cases, violent offenders were released early to make room for the new admission of a non-violent drug offender. This criminal justice policy clearly made no sense."
Now, this is an official statement (its posted on their website!), made by a prison system under a Republican administration run by the brother of President Bush. This tends to disagree with you (that is, it specifically states that "violent offenders were released to make room for non-violent drug offenders"). However, note that they are describing a period of time just over a decade ago.
Why are they posting this? Because they next point out that:
"The last fiscal year (96-97), only 22.6 percent of all admissions to prison had a drug charge as their primary offense, which was less than 5,000 inmates. This was down from over 16,000 inmates in fiscal year 89-90. Although felony adult drug arrests and drug admissions to community supervision have remained fairly constant during the last six years, drug admissions to prison have decreased dramatically, thereby saving valuable prison beds for violent and predatory offenders. It is vital that the Florida Legislature continues to provide funding for community-based programs and funding for a balanced criminal justice policy. Community-based outpatient programs operate at a fraction of the cost of new prison construction and extant prisons. Also, over the last six years, residential treatment programs have proven to be very cost effective."
Hmmm. It appears that the Florida prison system under Jeb Bush thinks that locking up people who are non-violent drug offenders is expensive and inefficient. Thus they are using alternative programs.
To your point - in Florida, at least, they are trying to use the prisons for violent offenders. And since they have built more prison space, I suspect they are not having to release "dirtbags" to house these people. Thus the viewpoint that "dirtbags" are released to house non-violent offenders appears to have been true in the past but at least in Florida is no longer true.
Interesting, isn't it? I think that your view of "pro-legalization" people may be uncharitable - they were correct in the past, but due to increased prison building today and usage of programs like these in Florida, they are no longer correct. Yet I would not call them "book-cooking" - just not up to date.
No one gets put in jail because anyone, anywhere, thinks it's something they need. People go to jail because they've engaged in behavior that society wishes to interrupt, or contain (Here in America, punishment is no longer considerd a valid reason, unfortunately).
Drug abuse certainly qualifies under that definition.
You failed to give us your thoughts on the 20,000 gun laws and the Second Amendment.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals also supports the Second Amendment -- they just support it as a state right , not an individual right.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
No problem. He has one.
 |
"Make him disappear, you fools..." |
Very interesting, now. They have the legal means, ala Hitler, to "herd" dissenters into the cattle cars. Historical footnote: Hitler did everything by "legal" means.
Oh, and the "Patriot Act" also includes Carnivore and Know Your Customer, did you know?
You mean her!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.