Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
prestidigitation.
"Historic Attack on States Rights" (AP CALI Article in my newspaper)
- Thread starter euthanatos93420
- Start date
prestidigitation.
DelSlow
Well-Known Member
So here I am with my coffee this morning having a cigarette and preparing my battered soul for another test of political abuse as I open my newspaper (yeah, they do still exist and some people still read them...sadly).
Seeing this headline made my heart sour. I'm like NO WAY they run a pro pot article in my town. Apparently the feds ordered California to address their inmate over population problem.
^.~
Apparently some reporter is just a little out of the loop 'cuz 'historic' my ass.
Damn, you got me in your siggy. I don't even remember typing that.
Sorry for the hijack. Back on topic!
euthanatos93420
Well-Known Member
LOL dw. there really hasn't been a isngle post ON TOPIC yet anyway. Yeah, when I read you your post it triggered me and I started trippin balls on the spot. I had to sig it. It was EPIC>
OregonMeds
Well-Known Member
I had to google to find out wtf the op was talking about. It's this:
High court to Calif: Cut prison inmates by 33,000
High court to Calif: Cut prison inmates by 33,000
(AP) SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that California must drastically reduce its prison population to relieve severe overcrowding that has exposed inmates to increased violence, disease and death.
The decision, however, doesn't mean the prison gates will swing open in an uncontrolled release.
The high court's decision calls on the state to cut the population to no more than 110,000 inmates, meaning California will have to shed some 33,000 inmates to comply over the next two years. State officials can accomplish that by transferring inmates to local jails or releasing them.
The 5-4 ruling revealed a sharp divide on the court between Justices Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia.
Kennedy wrote for the majority and described dismal conditions where prisoners are denied minimal care and suicidal inmates are held in "telephone-booth sized cages without toilets."
"A prison that deprives prisoners of basic sustenance, including adequate medical care, is incompatible with the concept of human dignity and has no place in civilized society," Kennedy wrote, joined by the court's four Democrat-appointed justices.
Scalia read a blistering dissent from the bench in which he called the ruling "perhaps the most radical injunction issued by a court in our nation's history" and said it would require the release of a "staggering number" of convicted felons.
The ruling also raised concerns among California lawmakers and attorneys general from 18 states who argued that a decision ordering the reduction of California's inmate population infringes on states' rights and could leave their prisons open to similar lawsuits.
It's "a historic attack on the constitutional rights of states and the liberty of all Californians," said former state Sen. George Runner, who had intervened in the lawsuit on behalf of legislative Republicans. It will result in "flooding our neighborhoods with criminals."
California has already been preparing for the ruling, driven as much by persistent multibillion dollar budget deficits as by fears for the well-being of prison inmates and employees. The state has sent inmates to other states. It plans to transfer jurisdiction over others to counties, though the state doesn't have the money to do it.
"Our goal is to not release inmates at all," said Matthew Cate, the state corrections secretary. Shorter term inmates will leave prison before the Supreme Court's deadline expires, and newly sentenced lower-level offenders would go to local jails under the plan.
You are upset op? I don't see the problem considering the prison system is an overcrowded dangerous scam, making more and harder criminals not less. The problem I see is the state not releasing the non violent people, but rather shipping them to other prisons instead. There's no reason we should have to pay to house and further criminalize non violent people in this rediculous system. If someone is a danger to society fine, they need to be locked up, but last I read something like 75% if not more of the prison population is there for non violent stuff, not a risk to society, mostly drug offenses. 33,000 is nothing. They should have however retroactively killed the war on marijuana and most drugs, that would fix the whole problem.
High court to Calif: Cut prison inmates by 33,000
High court to Calif: Cut prison inmates by 33,000
- Font size
- Share
- 0 Comments
(AP) SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that California must drastically reduce its prison population to relieve severe overcrowding that has exposed inmates to increased violence, disease and death.
The decision, however, doesn't mean the prison gates will swing open in an uncontrolled release.
The high court's decision calls on the state to cut the population to no more than 110,000 inmates, meaning California will have to shed some 33,000 inmates to comply over the next two years. State officials can accomplish that by transferring inmates to local jails or releasing them.
The 5-4 ruling revealed a sharp divide on the court between Justices Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia.
Kennedy wrote for the majority and described dismal conditions where prisoners are denied minimal care and suicidal inmates are held in "telephone-booth sized cages without toilets."
"A prison that deprives prisoners of basic sustenance, including adequate medical care, is incompatible with the concept of human dignity and has no place in civilized society," Kennedy wrote, joined by the court's four Democrat-appointed justices.
Scalia read a blistering dissent from the bench in which he called the ruling "perhaps the most radical injunction issued by a court in our nation's history" and said it would require the release of a "staggering number" of convicted felons.
The ruling also raised concerns among California lawmakers and attorneys general from 18 states who argued that a decision ordering the reduction of California's inmate population infringes on states' rights and could leave their prisons open to similar lawsuits.
It's "a historic attack on the constitutional rights of states and the liberty of all Californians," said former state Sen. George Runner, who had intervened in the lawsuit on behalf of legislative Republicans. It will result in "flooding our neighborhoods with criminals."
California has already been preparing for the ruling, driven as much by persistent multibillion dollar budget deficits as by fears for the well-being of prison inmates and employees. The state has sent inmates to other states. It plans to transfer jurisdiction over others to counties, though the state doesn't have the money to do it.
"Our goal is to not release inmates at all," said Matthew Cate, the state corrections secretary. Shorter term inmates will leave prison before the Supreme Court's deadline expires, and newly sentenced lower-level offenders would go to local jails under the plan.
You are upset op? I don't see the problem considering the prison system is an overcrowded dangerous scam, making more and harder criminals not less. The problem I see is the state not releasing the non violent people, but rather shipping them to other prisons instead. There's no reason we should have to pay to house and further criminalize non violent people in this rediculous system. If someone is a danger to society fine, they need to be locked up, but last I read something like 75% if not more of the prison population is there for non violent stuff, not a risk to society, mostly drug offenses. 33,000 is nothing. They should have however retroactively killed the war on marijuana and most drugs, that would fix the whole problem.
euthanatos93420
Well-Known Member
Sorry, half the time I'm a blubbering mess of overanalyzed linguistic constructions.
I'm upset because in MY paper "a historic attack on the constitutional rights of states" was the headline (think paranoid ultra-religious midwest) and I thought it was about POT.
I'm only mad because it's NOT a historic attack. Feds have been raping states rights in Cali since '96. I ALSO think that this isn't even an attack on states rights. It's a defense for the people (which in and of itself is surprising for the Fed).
That these fucking hickshit dickshits would sensationalize prison abuse as 'states rights' while blatantly ignoring the cannabis issues is what has me facepalming.
I'm upset because in MY paper "a historic attack on the constitutional rights of states" was the headline (think paranoid ultra-religious midwest) and I thought it was about POT.
I'm only mad because it's NOT a historic attack. Feds have been raping states rights in Cali since '96. I ALSO think that this isn't even an attack on states rights. It's a defense for the people (which in and of itself is surprising for the Fed).
That these fucking hickshit dickshits would sensationalize prison abuse as 'states rights' while blatantly ignoring the cannabis issues is what has me facepalming.
OregonMeds
Well-Known Member
Ok, agree. It's amazing to see a federal court upholding citizens rights. And yea stupid headlines...
Maybe you were a bit too stoned when you started this thread though, cause nobody could tell what the hell you were talking about or what your position was on the subject.
Maybe you were a bit too stoned when you started this thread though, cause nobody could tell what the hell you were talking about or what your position was on the subject.
euthanatos93420
Well-Known Member
Quite the opposite. I haven't toked since I swore to stop fucking with this hillbilly trash and move to a medical state. Soon bro...soon...
I become significantly more coherent the more stoned I am. Somewhere between manic depression, asperger's, dyslexia and an obsession with language (a logical overcompensation for lack of social skills which I've learned has had quite the opposite effect =P LOL)
I become significantly more coherent the more stoned I am. Somewhere between manic depression, asperger's, dyslexia and an obsession with language (a logical overcompensation for lack of social skills which I've learned has had quite the opposite effect =P LOL)
OregonMeds
Well-Known Member
Oh, sounds fun...
You could save yourself a lot of greif by just putting that in your sig.
Does pot really help though? I knew a couple people who drank and smoked and tried everything else with those issues, and only a strict regimen of the right pharma drugs at the right level without taking anything else to screw up the perfect even mix ever finally actually helped. Any drinking or pot or anything else, no matter how often or random, just made life a rollercoaster and totally screwed up the pharma drugs chances for success.
(I NEVER reccomend pharma drugs, I know how bad so much of it is, but your situation is different...) In fact I'm so pro pot and anti pharma I almost feel myself choking suggesting such things, but just saying... That's all I've seen work for others in your shoes.
Seriously, put that line you typed in your sig.
You could save yourself a lot of greif by just putting that in your sig.
Does pot really help though? I knew a couple people who drank and smoked and tried everything else with those issues, and only a strict regimen of the right pharma drugs at the right level without taking anything else to screw up the perfect even mix ever finally actually helped. Any drinking or pot or anything else, no matter how often or random, just made life a rollercoaster and totally screwed up the pharma drugs chances for success.
(I NEVER reccomend pharma drugs, I know how bad so much of it is, but your situation is different...) In fact I'm so pro pot and anti pharma I almost feel myself choking suggesting such things, but just saying... That's all I've seen work for others in your shoes.
Seriously, put that line you typed in your sig.
euthanatos93420
Well-Known Member
Well, I like mindfucks and obsessing over a language that at times feels designed to fuck with your mind...well...that's that paranoia creeping on but I fight the depression with a good sense of humor and good ol' cannabis.
Oh fuck no, haven't you read ED's description of assboogers? That's just asking for it LOLYou could save yourself a lot of greif by just putting that in your sig.
Indescribably. Visions of Suicidal priest murdering sprees---gone from the first puff.
I've tried just about every pharmaceutical in the book. Near lethal regimens of some classics (namely lithium) with little to no noticeable effect. I haven't taken pharmies for just over a decade now.
Quitting cannabis always triggers a roller coaster so I'm either toking or I'm not. But over the years sometimes quitting has been better than smoking for too long as well and I've learned a lot from the ladies (including Salvia who is not quite so comforting).
Alcohol is pretty bad. I'm oddly usually a happy drunk and don't get angry when except once recently which has me reconsidering even my very occasional alcohol usage.
I know, mental illness is one of those touchy subjects. If someone goes batshit and kills someone or some shit who do you blame? You know the English language creates a tendency to assign blame for accidents that isn't present in speakers of most other languages.
Indeed, cannabis is the only thing that has kept you from reading about spree of murdered priests.
ChronicObsession
Well-Known Member
Well I'm glad to see some real graphical explanation about stuff in general that is the Uninvited States of America
DelSlow
Well-Known Member
Oh, now I get what you were talking about.
It is the epitome of hypocrisy when I hear people ranting about individual liberties and personal responsibility, yet when it comes to weed, there is no debate. It's dangerous, it will be the downfall of our youth, increased smoking+driving, all that good BULLSHIET.
Anyhow, carry on
euthanatos93420
Well-Known Member
Yup, ever since Old lady + Hot Coffee + Driving +Multibillion $$$ Nationally hated food chain = $MILLION$ we've been sensationalizing and misconstruing any bullshit lawsuit as frivilous because we LOVE hearing about corporations and goverments getting it stuck to the man ever since our Rock N Roll heros sold out to the fucking RIAA.
Catering to this are our media outlets who will pervert and twist the details of anything to make people angry enough to get more attention and advertising space.
Catering to this are our media outlets who will pervert and twist the details of anything to make people angry enough to get more attention and advertising space.