After Surrendering on Crime, What Will the GOP Cave on Next?

Ann Coulter, VDARE, May 13, 2015

Bloomberg News ran a happy news story this week about the “surprising” development of Republicans joining Democrats in their effort to end our “incarceration generation” by the simple expedient of putting fewer criminals in prison. (Lots of good ideas involve ham-fisted, Johnnie Cochran-style rhymes.) [The Incredible, Bipartisan, Kumbaya Moment for Criminal Justice Reform, By Emily Greenhouse, May 11, 2015]

{snip}

Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former Texas governor Rick Perry have all called for “new” approaches to allegedly “non-violent” drug crimes–i.e., any approach other than prison.

Perry says: “You want to talk about real conservative governance? Shut prisons down. Save that money.”

Sen. Ted Cruz–along with lickspittle [Rand] Paul–wants to end mandatory minimum sentencing. Yes, remember how much we trust judges to use their discretion wisely? The precise reason the public demanded mandatory minimums in the first place was because so many liberal judges had their own ideas about “alternatives to prison”–such as, again, not prison.

{snip}

Before sucking up to The New York Times, it would be really great if Republicans would read, so they’d know stuff.

Contrary to the assholery being pushed nonstop by the left, for example:

(1) No one is in prison just for possessing a joint; and

(2) So-called “non-violent” drug crimes that result in prison are generally committed by violent criminals.

Evidently, Americans need to patiently explain to elected Republicans–who are too busy hanging out with their Chamber of Commerce friends to have any idea how the world works–that no judge is going to waste prison space on a guy selling a joint.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, only 0.7 percent of all state inmates are behind bars for marijuana possession alone. Carnegie Mellon’s Jonathan Caulkins puts the figure at less than half a percent.

And these are the convictions of record.

Our pro-criminal media invariably cite the conviction of record, as if that’s the worst crime committed by the defendant. But, as the Times itself reports: “97 percent of federal cases and 94 percent of state cases end in plea bargains.”

Do you think criminals are pleading guilty to the most serious offenses they’re actually guilty of?

{snip}

Show me all the wonderful fellows in prison just because they had a single joint. I want three examples–and I want their names, so I can find out what they really did.

For years–in fact, to this very day–the left’s poster boy for the monstrous injustice of the war on drugs was DeMarcus Sanders, whose life was ruined, so the legend goes, just because police found a single marijuana seed in his car.

And then you run a basic Google search and find out that DeMarcus was a known gang member who had already served time for shooting a rival gang member. After that conviction, DeMarcus was arrested again, for who knows what–but copped a plea to possession of marijuana, the only charge we ever hear about in connection with his name.

{snip}

The reason so many plea bargains involve firearms and drugs isn’t that those are the perp’s main crime: It’s because guns and drugs aren’t human beings who can make lousy witnesses, leave the jurisdiction, die or be intimidated out of testifying. Possession offenses are the very least the prosecutor can demand in a plea bargain and the quickest way to get bad guys off the street.

Prosecutors know who the defendants are, and know what they really did. That’s why those in prison for “mere” drug possession actually have a higher arrest rate for violent crimes than those in prison for burglary, robbery or even drug trafficking, according to innumerable studies, including one in the Journal of the American Statistical Association.

You know what would be really great? Instead of Republicans impressing the media by taking “surprising” positions on crime, how about Republicans try surprising us by taking a position against Wall Street or the Chamber of Commerce and on the side of ordinary Americans?

{snip}

Topics: ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • dd121

    The answer is: whatever the Democrats propose.

    • Speedy Steve

      Senator Urine Hatch will let Obunghole become the dictator. He let Loretta Lynch become attorney-general while I can fill this blog with better candidates whose names begin with A.

  • Mack0

    Anyone who still has any faith in the Republican party is hopeless. Hell, anyone who has any faith in the political process is hopeless

    • Susannah

      Indeed. Both of our political parties are a toxic mixture of utterly worthless and absolutely harmful. The Stupid Party and the Evil Party are our choices for now,
      but soon it will only be the Evil Party elected by a Stupid population.

      • Mack0

        Very powerful comments because they are, sadly, true. Well said, Susannah

      • Mack0

        As an aside, I do love and appreciate your comments, Susannah. Always insightful.

        • stonepillow

          Yes, they are good!

      • pennawhytmn

        I tend to not be so pessimistic. I do notice a lot of realists are that way though. Give it time.people are waking up and realizing things. And young people are always ready to go against “the establishment”. Look at what the Left has accomplished, starting in the 50s and 60s. There has been a lot of recent change in attitudes regarding race. I, unlike most here, believe that the election of Barrack Obama, was one of the best things that could have happened to America. His performance accelerate the awakening of many White people, and he isn’t done yet. Of course things will have to get worse to push enough people over the threshold. White people react slowly and with caution…………… until they don’t.

        • TruthBeTold

          When Obama was first elected, I said it was an inevitability that we would have to suck up but in the long run, it was better that it happen when Whites were still the majority than when Whites were a minority.

          Obama seems to have come out of nowhere but is there any other liberal black on the horizon who could be elected?

          Obama and his handlers have been fairly careful in how they couch their race rhetoric.

          Despite his inflaming comments they have been tame compared to what most blacks believe and say.

          If you listen to black extremists many are saying ‘Obama isn’t black enough’ and they’re right.

          As I said, we’re lucky Whites were a majority when Obama was elected. A black leader with a black majority would be another Mugabe or Idi Amin.

          • Caesar Avgvstvs

            Whites have never had anything good under black leaders.

            In South Africa they seemed sensible enough to know that removing all Whites from the workplace would collapse everything fast. They still have laws requiring businesses to hire 90% black employees now- their water supply is failing to the extent they’ve gotten the Cubans to come in and help them fix it. If it wasn’t for the non-blacks stuck there I’d find the nation’s collapse rather entertaining.

            Even Zimbabwe hasn’t outright removed them. But land reform/”indigenization” laws as well as Mugabe’s constant anti-White rhetoric show that they clearly aren’t welcome (unless they are rich). Last I saw, three of the richest Zimbabweans were White.

            The rampage the blacks went on in the 18th century in Haiti shows that there is nothing new about this. Or how many times Haiti invaded its “more White” neighbour, the Dominican Republic. At least four times under the reign of Emperor Faustin, alone- and yet Haitians have the audacity to complain that the Dominican Republic also successfully occupied them a few times.

          • JTK

            If I am correct, Napoleon Bonaparte sold Louisiana to raise
            funds for protection of his richest colony, Haiti, from Black slave uprising. He lost, afterward all Whites and Mulattoes on the island were slaughtered.

          • Speedy Steve

            There are no liberal blacks. Think about it; it’s the tribe first.

          • Nathan Durhing

            That’s right, and why so many “conservative” church-going blacks voted for the Senate’s most radical member. That includes Colin Powell voting “black” over his friend John McCain.

          • Whirlwinder

            Have faith for Obammy is running as hard as he can to catch up to those vile evil persons.

          • pennawhytmn

            Great observation. I believe a lot of working class, Blue collar whites, believe that Obama’s policies would be very beneficial to poor Blacks and that they would reap the rewards too. They didn’t do so as proponents of diversity, or for any concern for Black upward mobility. They fell for all the clichés that any egalitarian socialist uses. They were thinking like Black people do, that somehow they can magically be more successful and prosperous due to changes in government policies. They are now seeing that things haven’t improved w/o th a socialist Black President, and that the surest way for upward mobility is still the tried and true method of more education and hard work.

        • Realist

          “I do notice a lot of realists are that way though.”

          What does that tell you?

      • Mangosteen, $1000 chair

        Yes, a fantastic and true comment!

      • Realist

        Exactly. This comments reveal that democracy has failed….again. There is no form of government more corrupt than democracy.
        Idiots electing idiots.

        • pennawhytmn

          I have to disagree. Look at how well Socialism “worked” under white rule of white people. The problem with democracy now is “multiculturalism, not democracy itself. With all whites, our democracy would be working just fine. I am asking you this with the utmost sincerity and am looking forward to your answer, although this article is older now I don’t know that you will check back again. If you don’t believe in democracy, what form of government would appeal to you? I am. very open-minded and would give a lot of objective consideration to an alternative.

          • Realist

            Look at how well Socialism “worked” under white rule of white people.”

            You are conflating socialism and democracy. Socialism is an economic system and democracy is a government system.

            “With all whites, our democracy would be working just fine.”

            It would be better, but not fine.

            If you don’t believe in democracy, what form of government would appeal to you?”
            Meritocracy. This country started out as a crude form of meritocracy.

          • Sick of it

            I’d love an actual Meritocracy, but most of the white people living here today would never be on board. That ship has sailed. Needless to say, the others would never want it either.

          • Realist

            You didn’t ask what other people want you ask me what would appeal to me.

          • Sick of it

            The Founders despised Democracy, which is why they created a Republic with what they thought to be appropriate checks and balances. Democracy is (low IQ) mob rule. Obviously socialism is so much garbage.

    • Jason Lewis

      If just one would come out with a pair and be frank and unapologtic he would rally a army around him.

      • Irish

        How pray tell would that army be rallied Mr Lewis? ..1st he’d be lambasted as evil..Then he’d be ignored..Just ask Mr Taylor..Though I’ll concede I am regrettably a admitted pessimist on this subject now.

        • Jason Lewis

          Mr Tayor does a excellent job debating and explaining the cause but someone who is already known with some power is what we need. I see a Senator, Governor or General. A Rand Paul would be excellent. Rick Perry floated the idea of secession and we saw how many responded with favor. He later said it was a joke but I think he did it intentionally to see the response. Now Paul and Perry likely arent gonna be the ones for us but most revolutions happen quickly. Once our people are no longer scared to speak out and no longer feel like their opinion is in the minority it will happen.

    • Mike

      But sometimes voting for the less bad person is the responsible thing to do when not voting and letting the horrible one get in results in so much damage to civilization.

      • Realist

        “But sometimes voting for the less bad person is the responsible thing to do when not voting and letting the horrible one get in results in so much damage to civilization.”

        There is no such thing. They are all bought and paid for by greedy people.

      • John Smith

        It only slows the process down, not stops it. Democrats are anything if not relentless.

    • USN Veteran

      Exactly. The Democrats openly hate Americans except those on welfare, & are absolutely in love with illegals. The Republicans are more subtle of their hatred of natural born Americans with jobs, but they hate us as well. Both parties would happily trounce a dozen Americans to kiss one illegals a$$.

  • TheCogitator

    The drug war is a waste and wrong. Ann Coulter is a shrill bitch who occasionally makes good points. This is not one of those occasions.

    • Mack0

      No one could have said it better.

  • Johann Wald

    Back in 1968 when he was running as a 3rd party candidate for President, George Wallace said “there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the Democrats and the Republicans”. Obviously, nothing has changed in 47 years.

    • WJaMrenfan

      Except a dime is worth less than it used to be.

    • Speedy Steve

      Wallace was a Democrat. There used to be conservative Democrats 47 years ago.

  • AmericanCitizen

    Here’s the next cave-in: If the Supreme Court finds against Obamacare and finds that the states that did not set up Federal Exchanges were issuing subsidies that they shouldn’t have (which guts Obamacare) Obama will step in, issue an executive order that “fixes” the wording the ACA uses (the administration’s position is that this is the equivalent of a typo), and then he’ll either ignore or set aside the SCOTUS decision. That’s highly unconstitutional, but that hasn’t stopped Obama in the past. He’ll dare the GOP to impeach him and find the 67 votes needed to convict. The GOP will let Obama get away with ignoring a SCOTUS decision. That’s the next cave-in, coming in June 2015.

    • Jason Lewis

      I’ll go a step further and say that if the SCOTUS finds against Obamacare the Republicans will either set up the exchanges or pass a law allowing people to keep their subsidies for a few more years. This will ensure Obamacare will never go away.

      • Bet on that. Don’t be surprised if legislation to restore the Federal subsidies as is has already been written and will be ready to go if SCOTUS finds the way they should in King v Burwell. The insurance industry is cracking the whip.

      • Realist

        Yeah….it’s called buying votes. Only happens in a democracy.

    • TruthBeTold

      The ACA is still new and we have a few years for troubles to materialize.

      One coming problem they’re going to face is when the kids who were put on extended parental coverage eventually have to start paying on their own.

      This was a MAJOR coupe for Democrats because it basically bought them the last Presidential election.

      But it was a one-time deal. Eventually these young kids will face the real world. How will they respond when they discover they’re now forced to pay for healthcare?

      In the course of the next decade, young kids will grow up and grow out of their parents healthcare program.

      There’s no telling what repercussions this is going to have.

      • John Smith

        If they keep getting saddled with mountains of college debt and can only find work as a barista, not too well, I expect.

      • Sick of it

        I’ve known pro-Obama people who got real ticked off at him after paying more for their insurance. All I can do is laugh.

  • Brady

    I’m by no means an advocate of drug legalization, but these mandatory minimums were an ill-thoughout response of government facing a rising demand for drugs and frustrated with its seeming inability to stop them. They haven’t, and won’t, fix the drug problem.

    • WJaMrenfan

      Are you in favor of bringing back alcohol prohibition? Why did it take a constitutional amendment to start a war on alcohol users and sellers, but not against pot and opium?

      • Brady

        Short answer: I don’t think the two are comparable.

        • WJaMrenfan

          Short observation: as research has shown, and everybody knows, race is a social construct.

          In case you aren’t picking up what I am putting down, I would have hoped readers of AmRen would apply some thought to this topic, rather than echo government propaganda.

          And if you don’t think alcohol is a drug, think again. Or that 151 rum or white lightning is a “beverage.” I happen to like alcohol. Gin and tonic in summer, scotching winter.

  • Is this “possession” just straight possession or PWID?

    Also, I’m glad to read that Ann C is openly naming WS and the Chamber Pot as oppositional hostile forces.

  • JohnEngelman

    Most violent crimes are not solved. For every “non violent drug offender” who never did anything more than grow, sell, and use marijuana there are probably scores more who got away with all the robberies, rapes, and murders they committed.

    • stonepillow

      Which is Coulter’s point.

    • WJaMrenfan

      Quit wasting money on chasing drugs. It is the lifeblood of gangs, as illegal high priced alcohol was for Capone. Tax the stuff, and lock up rapists, robbers and killers.

      • George Costanza

        But the people who sell drugs ARE the rapists, robbers and killers.

        • TruthBeTold

          Exactly.

          The belief is that the drug trade makes people criminals when it’s the opposite.

          Criminals are involved in criminal behavior and it’s not only drugs.

          There’s this absurd belief that making drugs illegal will magically transform criminals into respectable people.

          It’s not going to happen.

          DRUGS are not the problem. PEOPLE are the problem.

          • BillMiller66

            Ending drug prohibition won’t turn hardened criminals into law-abiding citizens, but it means shutting down the huge engine of crime known as the black market in drugs. Who knows? Gang-bangers might have to go back to stealing hubcaps instead of turning inner cities into war zones.
            I’d much rather step over an addict than get mugged by one.
            It’s time to legalize freedom.

        • WJaMrenfan

          Do you really believe people who make significant amounts of money selling drugs are the same people who rob convenience stores?

          • George Costanza

            Junkies never robbed liquor stores to get their fix?

          • WJaMrenfan

            Rush Limbaugh

  • Simonetta

    The entire trillion dollar drug war is based on several stupid assumptions:

    – Negroes and hippies are the only marijuana users. Therefore if we can pass and enforce nitwit laws against marijuana use, we can ‘git’ i.e. legally harass the hell out of all the negroes and hippies.

    * True in 1968, but not now. Besides, negroes and hippies are perfectly capable of creating problems for themselves and don’t need the government to create problems for them. Buying and selling drugs just gives them something to do because they aren’t all that good at doing anything else. Plus drugs are an easy bust for lazy cops, and easy money for private prison corporations.

    – Heroin users can’t do productive work because they’re too high. But they must acquire lots of money to buy heroin because they are addicted to the stuff. So they steal stuff from ordinary people. That’s their life: steal-get high, rinse, repeat…

    * more-or-less true. But, if you sell them cheap heroin, they won’t mind doing minimum-wage jobs. Junkies don’t steal because they enjoy being thieves, they steal to get money for heroin. If they had cheap, easily-available heroin, they wouldn’t steal things.

    – Government should protect people from their own bad decisions, like deciding to become junkies because it feels so good. So governments pass laws against drug use and possession.

    * governments should provide a stable currency, defend public order, and teach children to read. Families and churches should -try- to protect people from making bad decisions without passing bad laws. If the families and churches fail to convince people from getting high, well, so what? If they OD and die, again, so what? It’s what they want to do. Not everybody is meant to be Ozzie and Harriet.

    • dd121

      Are you serious? You think the reason they passed drug/pot laws was so they could harass Negroes/hippies? You must really hate whites.
      Anyway, legalization passed 55/45 in Colorado and a year after passing hasn’t produced a collapse of society. Even the governor who was against it, is now for it after seeing the results.

      • how about this

        Why would saying that mean he hates Whites? The explicit justification for the original marijuana laws in the US (discussed in testimony in the legislature) included melodramatic tales, often (possibly always) fabricated, of insanity/violence experienced/committed by people under the influence of marijuana. The alleged criminals were often Black or Mexican, and miscegenation with White women was also mentioned. Look up Harry Anslinger and Reefer Madness.

        • dd121

          As far as I know, the people who passed those laws many years ago were all white males. The implication is that they hated hippies and blacks.

          • Lexonaut

            ” The implication is that they hated hippies and blacks.”

            Absolutely correct. I lived through those times and they were spot on, with very good reason.

            The nation you live in today is rooted in flower power, miscegenation and affirmative action. There were a lot of Charles Manson types back then, it’s just that most of them were smart enough not to mess with celebrities.

          • TruthBeTold

            You spend too much time listening to Woody Harrelson.

          • dd121

            If you say so. I have no idea who that is. 🙂

        • Lexonaut

          The issue was that ditchweed was seen as a gateway drug. Guess what, they were right. Not every Mary Jane user graduates to the hard stuff, but almost every hard stuff addict started with MJ.

          • how about this

            There has never been any evidence for the gateway hypothesis, although there has been research searching for it. The vast majority of marijuana users do not go on to try cocaine or heroin. Most heroin users also drank water, breathed air, and drank alcohol before using heroin but we don’t consider those gateway substances.

          • Hilis Hatki

            Baby aspirin was my gateway drug. Next thing I knew I was on Flintstones Chewables and the road was wide open.

          • John Smith

            Alcohol is the gateway drug and you seldom find addicts who don’t use it in conjunction with other products.

          • WJaMrenfan

            Most start with cigarettes, then weed

          • Lexonaut

            In my case it was cigarettes, then weed, then an LSD bad trip, then get smart and stop. And oh yes, I quit drinking 25 years ago the morning I realized that I couldn’t remember the evening prior.

            Some of us have addictive personalities and metabolisms. For those of us who are like that, it’s basically quit or have your life ruined, assuming you don’t die from the effects.

            Regarding cigarettes, 11 years, six months, five days, two hours and seventeen minutes ago I went from three packs a day to one cigarette per hour for a week, and then I went cold turkey. It was the hardest thing I’ve ever done.

          • antiquesunlight

            Cigarettes then drinking, and I was satisfied with that combination. Quitting cigarettes was easy for me. Quitting drinking was another story. I never liked weed to begin with.

      • WJaMrenfan

        The early opium laws were designed to screw Asians. There was also significant anti black and Mexican motifs in anti cocaine and marijuana propaganda. But the blowback has hit society at large. In the US in the 1890s, adults could purchase drugs easily, and we didn’t have the gang-drug-crime problems we have today.

        • dd121

          Back then so many people were taking Laudanum is was becoming a bit of a social problem. Most people just naturally think that whatever they believe, so should it be for everyone. Hence, all the drug laws. The noose of societal control has been tightening ever since. You’d be hard-pressed to find much human behavior that isn’t illegal in this country. So much for the land of liberty our founders envisioned.

          • WJaMrenfan

            Widespread drug use was a problem. But the problems of today caused by drug laws are worse.

          • Sick of it

            Filth like David Sassoon started the international drug trade. Another reason I’m not a fan. Why play their game?

      • TruthBeTold

        No, it hasn’t cause the collapse of society nor has it emptied the prisons in Colorado.

        Pot is a mild drug like alcohol. MOST people use them responsibly.

        Other drugs are a whole different issue.

        Just consider meth. Right now we see the problems of meth addiction while it’s illegal. What happens when drugs like meth are legal to use. Do you believe that meth drug abuse and meth related drug crimes will simply disappear?

        • dd121

          Meth is really bad and evidently when intoxicated with it and other things like PCP the user may do crazy stuff like run naked in the mall and assault people. Nobody put a gun to anybody’s head and forced them to ingest those things. If your’re going to harm others while engaging in that behavior, that rises to the level of deserving punishment.
          We live in a imperfect world and that isn’t going to end.

          • Denis

            Tell me you never did something stupid in your early 20’s.. Come on, Just try it once, Man!. Next thing you know instead of a brutal hangover, You’re in the psych-ward in restraints with a felony assault charge..

        • how about this

          Where is the evidence that drug legalization increases drug use? All the evidence from areas which have liberalized their drug laws (although this does not always legalization) suggests that it doesn’t produce much of a change. See the case of Portugal, which has been formally studied by Glenn Greenwald with the Cato Institute.

          There is also no apparently correlation between harshness of drug laws and rates of use. There are countries with harsh laws and high use (the US), harsh laws and low use rates (Scandinavia), liberal laws and low use rates (the Netherlands), and so on.

          Also alcohol is not “mild” by any means, it is just that most people use it responsibly. Using it excessively potentially causes damage to practically everything in the body and early death in various ways (cirrhosis of the liver, cancer, etc.). This is not true of many other drugs, and certainly not of marijuana.

          • WJaMrenfan

            I am in favor of treating alcohol and other drugs the same. Regulate and tax. That is no panacea. Use will increase but problems will decrease overall.

        • John Smith

          I believe it appeared because it was a easily obtainable substitute for other drugs that are far less dangerous, which usually seems to be the MO of users and dealers after each new prohibition event – find a substitute that is often much worse than the one being outlawed. Can the meth/PCP/LSD genie be put back in the bottle if opium, cocaine, weed, ‘shrooms and peyote are all that’s legal, besides alcohol and tobacco? I don’t know.

      • John Smith

        Actually, they did it because they were afraid it would make negroes and Hispanics more violent and dangerous, or at least lazier.

        • dd121

          It seems to have worked.

    • how about this

      Regarding junkies, there have been studies in the UK showing that many of these people, if they are given free heroin by the government, can be law-abiding citizens and hold jobs; the effects of heroin itself are normally not that incapacitating. These users also ended up much worse (e.g. homeless, prostitutes) when they lost their supply of cheap heroin.

      However, many heroin users in the US (particularly those who have respectable jobs in the first place) would never even consider stealing, regardless of whether they are in withdrawal or whatever. People blame crime too much on drug use when a lot of it is just a matter of character. See In Defense of Drug Use by Jacob Sullum.

      • antiquesunlight

        “…if they are given free heroin…”

        ha ha ha ha

        “…by the government…”

        ha ha ha ha

        “However, many heroin users in the US (particularly those who have respectable jobs in the first place) would never even consider stealing, regardless of whether they are in withdrawal or whatever.”

        I’m pretty skeptical of that. Drug addicts are exceedingly selfish and will do whatever they need to do to get their fix.

        “People blame crime too much on drug use when a lot of it is just a matter of character.”

        Drug abuse is itself a matter of character, by and large.

        • how about this

          I am not sure what you mean with your laughter; are you trying to suggest that these studies or policies did not happen? Look up heroin maintenance; it has a history going back to the 1920s in the UK and is currently also being practiced in several other countries including Switzerland, Germany and the Netherlands. It used to be customary in the US as well.

          The users I was reading about were not those you would probably know were users. According to the research most users are not addicts. Here is a relevant quote from a book by Arthur Benavie, Drugs: America’s Holy
          War (New York and London: Routledge, 2009)

          “Studies find that most regular heroin users are not addicts. They control their use by spacing out their doses, and are called “chippers.” Their life is structured around conventional employment and social activities involving heroin. They rarely commit crimes and do not have income levels high enough to support a heavy habit. Typically, they restrict their heroin use to weekends and consume the drug in groups. Since they avoid frequent use and dependence, they rarely require treatment and therefore are visible mainly to researchers who have
          observed this pattern in numerous studies.” (Benavie 106)

          From the same page of the book:
          “There
          are also many high income earners who can afford regular heroin and still
          support their family and adequately perform their jobs. Some British doctors,
          nurses, and pharmacists fall into this category, since they can easily get
          pharmaceutical heroin. Others obtain the drugs by contact with dealers or, in
          the UK, by getting a medical prescription. Dr. Tom Carnwath, a psychiatrist
          working with drugs users in Manchester, England, reports that he has legally
          prescribed heroin “long-term” and “on a regular basis to a number of people who
          lead stable productive lives, including a prosperous lawyer, a bookshop owner,
          a boat-builder and a professional cricketer.”

          • antiquesunlight

            “I am not sure what you mean with your laughter; are you trying to suggest that these studies or policies did not happen?”

            No. I’m suggesting:

            a. Giving a junkie free heroin probably would decrease crime, but it would probably not decrease, and would almost certainly increase, other undesirable things, like number of deaths from overdose, healthcare expenses (which, probably, they would often not pay themselves), and the general unpleasantness of being around a drug addict. Drug addicts/alcoholics are not fun people, even if they are “functioning.”

            b. The government giving people free heroin is unethical/irresponsible, because it incentivizes destructive behavior and because the government’s money comes from the people’s money, which means they are using the people’s money to give heroin to drug addicts, which is not ok with me.

            c. The government as a paternalistic drug pusher is funny.

            “The users I was reading about were not those you would probably know were users. According to the research most users are not addicts.”

            Ok. I thought you were still talking about junkies. Withdrawal does not necessarily indicate psychological addiction, but it’s a pretty good indicator. I don’t know a whole lot about heroin, but if you’re, for example, drinking liquor so much that you start withdrawing from it, you very likely have a serious problem.

          • how about this

            Heroin itself is generally not responsible for junkies’ health problems (I would blame their general irresponsibility), and medical heroin is certainly less likely to be dangerous than street heroin. Here are some relelvant quotes cited on page 107 in the same book I mentioned earlier (sorry I don’t have the original citations offhand):

            Jerome Jaffe, President Nixon’s director of the Office of Drug Abuse Prevention: “The [heroin] addict who is able to obtain an adequate supply of drugs through legitimate channels and has adequate funds usually dresses properly, maintains his nutrition, and is able to discharge his social and occupational obligations with reasonable efficiency. He usually remains in good health, suffers little inconvenience, and is, in general, difficult to distinguish from other persons.”

            “According to Tom Carnwath, a psychiatrist working with drugs abusers in Manchester, “Heroin causes little physical harm and may be taken over long periods with safety. …It is true that many heroin users become ill, but this is usually the result of using contaminated injecting equipment or impure supplies of the drug.””

            You are right about my not being clear about the distinction between junkies and casual users. All of the following is more relevant to addicts.

            I understand that it costs taxpayers money but so does paying for the police necessary to deal with this kind of crime or getting your house burglarized. Health problems among users also seem to go down. Here is a quote describing an experiment by the Swiss federal government:

            “When the Swiss federal Office of Public Health issued the final report in July of 1997… Crime among the addict population dropped by 60 percent, half the unemployed found jobs, a third of those on welfare became self-supporting, nobody was homeless, and the general health of the group improved dramatically. By the end of the experiment, eighty-three [out of 800] patients had decided on their own to give up heroin in favor of abstinence.” -Mike Gray, Drug
            Crazy: How We Got Into This Mess and How We Can Get Out, 164

            I am not saying they are fun people, just that assuming it is not an option to ship them off to a desert island for some kind of anthropological experiment/reality TV show, heroin maintenance is better than nothing. If you just put them in prison they will be out on the street again soon enough, probably no more fun to be around than before.

      • Denis

        “can be law-abiding citizens and hold jobs;”. That’s inspiring.

    • TruthBeTold

      There are two theories here.

      1) Making drugs illegal make people into criminals.
      2) Legalizing drugs will take away the criminal incentive and people will them become respectable and responsible members of society.

      Criminals are criminals. As Coulter points out drugs are just symptom of criminal behavior.

      If you believe legalizing drugs is going to make the world a better place by emptying our prisons you’re dead wrong.

  • MekongDelta69

    Since I read Coulter and Malkin every week to see what they say, sometimes I ‘drop’ in the URL to AmRen in my comment(s), so maybe some people from Human Events, Townhall, etc. will drop on by.

    Judging by the new ‘faces’ (i.e. User IDs) on here, in the last couple of years, maybe it’s worked a little.
    [And obviously, I’m hardly the only one that does that. If you don’t – you should.]

    • She has all but come right out and said that she reads Steve Sailer regularly. And from him, it’s a short hop to AR.

      • Lexonaut

        From some of the things he says these days I believe Rush Limbaugh has also had enough. He’ll say “democrat” and “the left” when talking about the causes of places like Detroit, but if you make the appropriate word substitutions he surely does sound like a race realist.

        He’ll never admit it, and I don’t blame him, but I think he’s ready in principle to urge that white folks stop coddling minorities.

        • John Smith

          Snerdley is black, last I heard.

          • Lexonaut

            Snerdley is in fact black. Limbaugh is not a racist.

      • Diana Moon Glampers

        I found AmRen via a comment on SBPDL. I joined disqus in order to reply to a comment from Spartacus (whose comments I really miss).

  • dd121

    This sounds like a stealth method of keeping violent blacks out of prison. If the liberals take over politically to make this country a one-party system, the courts are likely to have only liberal judges. The liberals have been complaining how disproportionately blacks are incarcerated. (It doesn’t occur to them it’s because they commit more crime). The unintended consequence of this is to dump millions of violent blacks back into America.

    • Jaggers

      Agreed, except I would hardly call it “stealth.”

      • dd121

        I say “stealth” because dumping blacks back on the street isn’t the stated selling point, just the actual result.

  • Yancy Derringer

    DeMarcus Sanders’ arrest reports (probable cause affidavits) should be available. They’re public records. One could find out what else Sanders was accused of doing besides possessing a marijuana seed.

  • Jason Lewis

    Could releasing them further our cause? Probably not. The increase in the crime they would cause after release would be blamed on white privlege.

    • pennawhytmn

      No it wouldn’t. I say release back into their ghettos and let them continue to do our work for us. Since Ferguson, and more so Baltimore, there is a big change in the sentiments of working whites toward Blacks. If you ever read THE comments section of Liberal Rags such as Yahoo, you would see the change in popular opinion from white people. Compared to the time of the election of Obama, those comments are a complete 180. Really, the past year has brought on the most change I would say. Let these “people” continue to shine on for all to see.

  • pennawhytmn

    I say it is about time Republicans start appealing to the media. That goes for both those in office and those who are going to run for office. Start telling the masses of uneducated what they want to hear, and then, once in office, do the opposite. The Republicans do not know how to use the stupidity of people like the Left does. Many pay attention to headlines around election time and then barely ever read the news afterwards. Lie, cheat, beg, borrow… ANYTHING to get Liberals out of there.

  • pennawhytmn

    There are a few issues that keep otherwise conservative white people from voting Republican. The fight against sensible legalization of recreational marijuana use is a big one, myself included. And, I know I am not going to be very popular with this one (same could be said for the first one too I assume), but their constant fight against abortion turns away those who would otherwise support them. I, too, am for people having the option of abortion, if for one reason only, we do not need even more unwanted children in this country. If the Republicans would lighten up on just those 2 issues, they would gain a lot of popular support, far exceeding what they would lose. Their base is going to continue to vote for them regardless. They are not going to turn liberal. And far more people would get behind them. I have heard countless people say- “I am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal”. And they do not mean they support the leftist narrative. They just want the government to butt out of their lives. I personally do not want the government “protecting” me from myself either.l

    • how about this

      Support for legal abortion is actually evenly split according to Gallup polls, with 47% for to 46% against as of 2014. The marijuana issue is also pretty evenly split, at 51% for and 47% against legalization (this is just legalization of use) in the most recent Gallup poll. I would also be more inclined to vote for conservatives if they supported marijuana legalization but I am not sure many people are with me. Legalizing marijuana use is also much more popular among liberals than conservatives (73% vs 31%).

      • pennawhytmn

        I can agree with those numbers. But I think there is more to gain by conservatives supporting those 2 issues than there is to lose. I think more people would jump TO the conservative side than will jump away from it. My only concern would be the elderly. That is where most of the resistance comes from and it might just push them to the Liberals for Social Security issues. Anybody who lives on a tight budget has this belief that Democrats are their saving grace.

    • Michael Robert Ryan

      The G.O.P. has lightened up plenty on abortion; there are plenty of pro-abortion RINOs in national politics in this country. It is the Democrats who are the abortion extremists. Except for Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, I am not aware of one single anti-abortion Democrat on the national scene. It’s downright spooky how much in lockstep that Democratic politicians are on that issue. It makes one wonder what nefarious puppet-master is working behind the scenes to perpetuate that state of affairs. And I say that as a person who supports generally permissive abortion laws like you do (although I think those laws should be made by the individual states and not the Supreme Court.)

    • Sick of it

      Conservative potheads must be anywhere but in the South. I’ve never seen them here.

      • Travis Lee

        Sure you have.
        They just think it’s pointless to talk with you.

        • Sick of it

          Most of the potheads around here go with blacks.

      • Mangosteen, $1000 chair

        They exist. Trust me.

      • Diana Moon Glampers

        Most pot smokers I know lean liberal, but if you’ll find ones who lean right, Dixie is the place.

      • pennawhytmn

        I personally am not a “pothead” either. I used recreationally in high school and college quite often. After college I did so on rare occasions and haven’t used it at all since I was told I was going to become a father about 9 years ago.. I enjoyed marijuana with many other friends who also used recreationally. I do not feel it should be up to the government to tell what people can and cannot do with or to their own bodies. Marijuana can be very pleasurable for many people, and they shouldn’t have to be worried they will have their lives ruined if they are one of the comparatively small number of those who are caught using or possessing it. Smoking marijuana is a victimless crime. The same can be said for prostitution. Just because I am repulsed by the behavior, it doesn’t give me any desire to have the government stopping others from partaking, if he or she so chooses.

        • Sick of it

          There’s s certain level of cognitive disconnect going on here. You say it’s a victimless crime, yet you yourself stopped toking when you learned you were going to be a father.

          Liberals/socialists concocted these arguments to destroy the family from within by the way. It worked. They scream about personal freedom like smoking dope or living like a whore…and yet don’t mind the government telling them who they must hire, live beside, send their kids to school with, how to practice their religion, etc. Which of these things was actually protected under the Constitution?

          • pennawhytmn

            But see, I disagree with the government doing both. It isn’t the government’s job to tell us who to hire, live near, go to school with, how to worship or not, or what to do with our minds and bodies. It isn’t a cognitive “disconnect” just because it doesn’t follow the same path as yours. I’m am more against the loss of freedom of association than I am persecution for drug use or people choosing wether to pay for sex or not, if that makes you feel any better. And yes, they are victimless crimes. Rape is a crime. A man paying a woman for sex or vice versa is not. Killing someone under the influence of drugs is a crime. Smoking a little marijuana, watching a psychedelic movie or a comedy and then going to sleep is not. Again, I do neither so I don’t have the motivation to be very proactive about those issues. But the overreach of government that you mentioned, I take to heart.

          • Sick of it

            Others have done this with liberalism, so I’ll do the same with libertarianism. Take libertarianism to its ultimate end and you refuse to allow communities of people to live how they want to live, as they will be forced to accept the different lifestyles of others, whether they want to live in the same community with them or have that around their children, or not. Libertarianism would have to be enforced at gunpoint just like, say, integration.

            There’s also the private law theory of Han Herman Hoppe, but I don’t see that turning out any better than what we have today since that is what we have today with the billionaires (almost none of whom earned their ill-gotten gains) determining the actual rules.

    • I didn’t know we were suffering for a lack of the Republican Party winning elections.

    • Lord Sandwich

      I am in favor of blacks having abortions and whites having babies. I’m a pro-weed conservative.

      • Diana Moon Glampers

        Same here.

    • Mangosteen, $1000 chair

      I’m anti-abortion for whites, but pro-abortion for everyone else. Does that count?

    • John Smith

      You forgot going soft on gun rights (including failing to roll any prohibitions back) and illegal immigration, which are two other trends that make me question the GOP and their commitment to this country.

  • Alpin Thueson

    The ‘amish’ controlled congress and federal government have been completely broken for some time. Time for the United States to break apart unfortunately and hang the traitors and enemy alien fifth columnists.

    • Sick of it

      Hanging is what you do to normal criminals. Heretics always got something worse.

      • phillyguy

        disembowelment ?

        • Sick of it

          Burnt with fire.

  • GAWZ

    “how about Republicans try surprising us by taking a position against Wall Street or the Chamber of Commerce..”
    _____________________
    There is one thing that you will always be able to count on not happening: the above.

  • Sick of it

    Santorum’s only support came from hardcore conservatives. Goodbye Santorum. Another loser in this massive pile of dung running under Sheldon Adelson’s banner.

    • But yet, he seems to understand the immigration issue the best of all the purported serious candidates.

      Sure this dope thing is silliness, but it can be undone. Bad demographics through open borders, a lot harder to undo.

      • Sick of it

        Bet you $1000 he’d open the gates like any of the others.

        • I don’t think we can make that bet because I’m not bullish on his chances. It’s just that I think he’s the one most likely to follow through if he wins. I believe Rick Santorum is far more likely to be serious than Scott Walker, who I think is leading us on, or more appropriately, throwing a tantrum because Sheldon Adelson is all in for Rubio.

  • MBlanc46

    I’m not concerned about any disparity in prosecution or sentencing of Afro-Americans for any class of crime. Blacks are arrested for, prosecuted for, or convicted for more crimes per capita because they commit more crimes per capita. I don’t encourage people to use mind-altering substances. But I don’t see anything in the US Constitution that gives the Congress the authority to deny citizens the right to use them. Like all other activities that the Congress is not authorized to legislate about, leave it to the states and to the people.

  • Hammerheart

    My Narcotics and Vice professor explained why this is a terrible idea beautiful:

    There’s some a certain correlation between drug users, property crime, and violent crime. If their addiction is strong enough, they will result to more extreme measures to keep using, including violent crime. So just because you’re no longer incarcerating ‘non violent drug offenders’ doesnt mean you’re lowering crime or making people safer, quite the opposite.

  • I saw a video about this on YouTube, by Colin Flaherty. The so-called “non-violent” drug offender thing is pretty much a myth. Police and prosecutors use this to convict more serious offenders who otherwise they can’t make a case against them. It is difficult convicting blacks due to a wide variety of reasons, such as the refusal of residents in black neighborhoods to testify, and the phenomenon of the “Bronx jury.” I therefore do not want our drug laws relaxed too much.

    • carriewhite64

      I did not know that police and prosecutors were using drug laws to convict serious offenders. I’m not comfortable with this practice.

      • I am more comfortable with that than to let violent Negroes run free.

        • carriewhite64

          Fair enough.

    • WJaMrenfan

      Rush Limbaugh was a narcotic addict. He was taking huge doses and going to work.

  • WJaMrenfan

    The drug war is stupid. Learn something from prohibition and how it bulked up organized crime. Tax the stuff and sell it in state stores like Utah does liquor. Drug warriors are addicted to drug laws.

    • Denis

      Who is going to pay for all the people being rushed to ER’s with overdoses?. Are we going to make prostitution legal as well?. So people can get their meth or heroin fix after they’ve sold their home and ruined their family?. Taking prescription drugs without understanding contraindications?. Then who does my family sue when I flat-line from downing a fifth of scotch with my phenobarbital?. Brilliant idea.

      • John Smith

        Narcan isn’t that expensive. if drugs were legal, they’d be much cheaper and folks might not have to hock everything they own to maintain their habit and anyone doing a fifth of booze with their pills should have to suffer the consequences of their own stupidity. Prostitution should be legal and regulated and that it isn’t legal and regulated makes it a nuisance where streetwalkers ruin neighborhoods by plying their trade in public view, because being illegal sure hasn’t stopped it (or drug use either). Same could be said for rape, robbery and murder – laws don’t affect those intent on breaking them until after the fact.

    • John Smith

      The WOD is an excuse for govt. to expand control over the general populace and the reason why cops are effectively paramilitary occupation forces, even in white areas, and why you have to prove how you have a right to any “large” amount of cash found in your possession.

  • Lexonaut

    Re the drug war my position is this …

    1 – Decriminalize possession.
    2 – Give free hard drugs to those who won’t/can’t kick their habit.
    3 – Give free detox hospitalization to those who do want to quit.

    These steps will take the profit out of the trade, and only the dumbest users will be forced into lives of crime, which they’re forced into today anyway.

    Then …

    4 – Give the death penalty to all who start people down the path of hard drugs by either importing, manufacturing, distributing or selling them to end users.

    • antiquesunlight

      I might go along with 1.

      You can already get what amounts to free detox at hospitals. Bums dting go to the emergency room and get pumped full of ativan and the like.

      Seems like 3 incentivizes drug use.

      • Lexonaut

        Thanks for your serious reply. That said …

        There are some crimes that are an attack on the very fabric of civilization and therefore deserve capital punishment first time out, such as used to be the case with arson during riots. I put being involved in the illegal drug trade in any form in this category.

    • WJaMrenfan

      We don’t need to “give” alcohol to winos, so we should not give heroin to junkies. But we also don’t have laws that require winos pay $100 for a bottle of Mad Dog. If other drugs were regulated like alcohol, “hard” drugs would cost about as much as a bottle of mass marketed whiskey, including tax. We also don’t execute manufacturers of Jim Beam. We do and should punish adults who ply minors with alcohol, and we should do the same with other drugs.

      Alcohol Prohibition required a Constitutional Amendment. Why alcohol is treated vastly different from other intoxicants is a good question. The burden of proof should not be on those who say we should treat alcohol and other drugs the same, but on those who say you should (and constitutionally can) regulate one and prohibit and punish with prison the other.

  • dd121

    There has been a certain uptick of pot use with legalization in Colorado. I suspect most of that is people coming from out of state.

    I think there’s a certain number of people who are going to legal/illegal drugs and the legal status of the drug doesn’t make much difference.

    I’m not a total libertarian but my instinct is to legalize all drugs and let God sort it out. The problem is some do-gooder will complain about their little Joey got high and jumped off the roof killing a baby in a pram on the ground so it should all be outlawed. Most people’s fascist instincts has them agreeing. That’s just the way most people think.

    • Denis

      I suppose all those anti-drug laws are why Singapore is so crappy. Why don’t we deregulate the medical profession?. I’ll give you a liver transplant for 50 bucks.

      • dd121

        In most of the third world you can walk into a pharmacy and buy what you want without the intervening charge of a $100 buck for a doctor to sign a prescription. Works pretty well it seems.
        I know there are plenty arguments against this.
        In the 20th and 21st centuries we’ve undergone a credentialing and certification revolution. It makes services cost a lot more and often isn’t necessary.

        • Denis

          You can’t buy crack at any pharmacy in any country. That aside, Maybe there is a correlation between being able to walk into a pharmacy and buy whatever you want, And that being a third world country. Since the globalists have plugged Mexico into NAFTA, That is no longer the case there. (I know, I tried last month.)

        • DaveMed

          … and that is one of the reasons why we’re facing a drug-resistant bacteria crisis. OTC antibiotics.

          • dd121

            That’s what the media tell us. I suppose there’s at least a grain of truth to it.

          • DaveMed

            It’s scientific fact.

        • John Smith

          Except antibiotics, which is why all the resistant disease strains seem to come from those places. Illiterate peasants don’t follow usage instructions too well.

  • George Costanza

    Why don’t we ever hear about how Whites are “disproportionally” incarcerated for methamphetamine use..

    • GAWZ

      Are they?

      • John Smith

        I’d imagine so, as meth really doesn’t seem like something blacks get into much. I believe Hispanics split the difference between blacks and whites for using crank.

      • George Costanza

        Yes! unequivocally !!

  • Mike

    I don’t know, I get the argument that they’re using lesser crimes to put violent people who commit worse crimes in jail but I don’t think it’s a good system overall. We need to legalize drugs, no it won’t solve all the problems of minority violence but it’ll help us save money and probably will reduce some violence at least.

    • Denis

      You can likely kiss the United States goodbye as a world power at that point. If it doesn’t destroy itself, I would assume God would, Or something like that. Have you ever seen anyone have a bad acid trip?. Think rage zombies in “28 days later”. How about PCP?. Or bath salts?. Do you think people from civilized countries would want to visit the U.S. with a bunch of crack bums running around in the streets?. I would assume you would still want to prosecute for crimes?. Assault, etc. .. So the prisons would be filled with people trying to tear other peoples faces off to see what’s inside when they’re on a crack/acid binge. How about cannabis induced psychosis?. Who is going to pay for people with massive brain damage from drug overdoses?. For rhinoplasties for stock traders who have been on coke binges for 4 years straight?. (possibly the norm already.) Will you force the insurance companies to cover it?.

  • GAWZ

    With the advent of private prisons and then shares of stock publically offered for trade, incarceration has become a racket. As far a Blacks go (or anyone for that matter) — Stupidity coupled with Immorality has always been a ticket to the gray bar hotel.

    • TruthBeTold

      With the advent of private prisons and then shares of stock publically offered for trade, incarceration has become a racket.

      I’m sorry but I believe that’s nothing more than a ‘progressive’ liberal ‘narrative’ that has been hammered into peoples heads as a ‘fact’.

      I’m all for better oversight and transparency but I haven’t seen any proof that the police have been given orders to arrest as many people as possible to keep our prisons full and profitable for companies.

      I call BS.

      • Diana Moon Glampers

        It is actually true, but the system doesn’t intentionally send more in for the profiteers, actually they simply let more out to keep the churn going and maximize the profits. The supply is no problem in country with 120 million non-whites.

      • John Smith

        What about that juvenile court judge in PA who got kickbacks from sending thousands of youthful offenders to a private detention facility for kickbacks, even ones who had done nothing more wrong that staying out after curfew?

  • TruthBeTold

    The precise reason the public demanded mandatory minimums in the first place was because so many liberal judges had their own ideas about “alternatives to prison”—such as, again, not prison.
    Exactly so.

    Everyone was screaming about the outrageous, random, inconsistent, unjustifiably discretionary sentences that everyone agreed we needed minimum standards along with ‘3 strikes you’re out’.

    Now they want judges to sentence at their discretion meaning that liberal judges will let hardcore criminals go free and conservative judges locking people up for jaywalking.

    Liberal judges will again let criminals off the hook and crime in black neighborhoods will explode.

    • John Smith

      Forgot liberal judges throwing the book at whites who violated laws that were contrary to their racial survival, or even just common sense.

  • RonaldJamesPadavona

    As someone who spent nearly six years in prison, I can assure you that sending blacks to prison is not really punishment for them. It’s more like a family reunion or a block party. They sit around jibber-jabbering loudly with each other all day, they get to play basketball, and they get to watch rap videos on tv. They generally don’t care all that much about the families they left behind on the street and as far as them being deprived of female companionship, I don’t think its that big of a deal for most of them. A hole and a heartbeat is all they require and they don’t really care if it belongs to a male or a female. Sending blacks to prison is just another form of welfare. In fact, it’s more expensive than keeping them up on welfare.

    I’m a recovering libertarian so I used to be in favor of drug legalization. But with the exception of marijuana (which isn’t really a drug) I’m no longer in favor of legalizing drugs. Why? Because I know what the results will be if we legalize it and drug prohibition is actually a jobs program for blacks. I’ll explain. What do you think blacks are going to do for money if drugs are legalized? Get a 9-5 job? Become fine, upstanding citizens? Come on, get real. They’re going to resort to much more violent ways to earn a living like kidnapping, robbery, and extortion. Wouldn’t Whites be safer if blacks were earning money selling drugs to willing customers than committing REAL crimes against us?

    So my prescription is don’t legalize hard drugs and allow them to be sold in a store like pot is in Colorado. Leave them officially illegal but don’t arrest anyone for selling them. That way the United Negro Jobs Program stays intact and since most of the drug activity will remain in the seedy neighborhoods, Black Lives Still Won’t Matter as they’ll continue to shoot each other over turf disputes. And the system will be less parasitic on the rest of us in the meantime. Is this a perfect solution? No. But it’s about the best we can hope for in a world where the demand for drugs is never going to go away. And it also answer the question “What is best for Whites?”

    • TruthBeTold

      I get into protracted discussions here and on other websites about legalizing drugs.

      The reason we have ‘tough drug laws’ is simply because too many people use drugs irresponsibly.

      Many people, even on the right and libertarians seem to believe that if we just make drugs legal drug crimes will evaporate into thin air.

      What will happen is, as you noted, we will see a shift in criminal behavior from one activity to another. Blacks, Whites, Hispanics who see drugs as their livelihood aren’t going to become respectable people.

      I really like your comments and it’s too bad they’re on the bottom of the list.

      I would ask you to consider writing a full article on this subject. Your time and experience in prison with blacks and how you see their behavior changing after decriminalization.

      You have a great outline for a full piece. Please consider writing and submitting one to this website.

      • RonaldJamesPadavona

        Thanks. I’ll take that into consideration. I’m pretty busy though. I work full time and have three small kids. I don’t have a lot of time for the Internet.

    • Rob

      WOW what a story. So prison is a good thing for these Negros. We never hear of it, Maybe they love it because they get free food and also shelter and free stuff to do on the ide no matter the gender. Did you get raped in prison or any of these gays or negroes try any stuff with you?

      • RonaldJamesPadavona

        No, I didn’t get raped. There’s enough fags in there giving it up willingly. Yes, it does happen, but tales of prison rape are grossly over-exaggerated. You’ve watched too many movies. And FWIW, asking an ex-con if he got raped is about as ill-mannered as asking a soldier how many people he killed after he gets back home from a deployment.

        The main thing you have to deal with as a White man in prison are negros trying to steal what few belongings you have in there. Because you’re White they automatically assume that you’re weak and won’t fight back. Once the precedent is established that you will, most of them will leave you alone. The first time one of them tries to take your stuff or even mentions it, you just have to knock the hell out of him. Yeah you might get your ass kicked, but that’s not important. What’s important is that you’re labeled a “crazy ass cracka”. I saw a lot of my fellow White inmates struggle with that, but as a member of the Appalache tribe it kinda came natural to me.

        • Weisheit77

          Respect… sounds negroish… but, you’re doing the best you can.

          • John Smith

            When your world is run by negroes, you have to play a game they understand.

    • WJaMrenfan

      You make some really excellent points. However, I believe we need to return to the pre-Progressive era – to the 1890s – where adults could legally purchase any drug, including cocaine and heroin. When a “drug store” actually sold drugs. Of course more people will use these substances, but on balance the impact on society will be positive. There will be space for violent offenders in prison, the illegal market will tank, and tax revenue will increase. Probably fewer people will drink alcohol excessively, preferring “no-cal martinis” in a pill or powder. The booze industry supports the drug war because it wants to keep its monopoly of the predominant legal intoxicant.

      • RonaldJamesPadavona

        If our racial demographics were similar to what they were in the pre-Progressive era, I’d agree with you. But they’re not, so I don’t.

        Most Whites won’t resort to violent crime as a substitute for not being able to sell illegal drugs. It’s just not in our nature. We’re better at organized violence like conquering or dropping bombs on entire countries. Not kidnapping and robbing people.

        Except for when I was in prison I’ve lived in the hills of North Carolina my entire life. As I’m sure you know, poverty and drug addiction are quite prevalent in these areas. Yet, there’s not a neighborhood around (except the black infested ones) that it’s not safe to walk through, regardless of who you are. There’s plenty of White drug dealers here too and you rarely ever hear about them killing each other over turf disputes.

        When dealing with a problem today, we can’t always use the same solutions we used a century ago. A certain variable has been introduced into our system that changes everything. That variable being the lack of White dominance in America.

  • In a way, black urban violence has been a great boon to the American Right. It led to white flight, elections of Nixon and Reagan. It led to rise of GOP-dominated suburbs. It led to ‘liberalism’ becoming a dirty word and associated with crime, urban blight, and thuggery.

    Americans didn’t really vote for Nixon or even Reagan. They voted AGAINST implosion of American cities due to black lunacy.

    Indeed, had most cities gone the way of Detroit, American Conservatism would be winning.
    But the cities were saved by Clinton and Giuliani and etc, and they did it by getting tougher on Negroes and with Section 8 programs.
    Also, by promoting ‘free trade’ and lower taxes, the globalist elites in cities could make more money than ever before. Globalism hollowed out small towns dependent on factories and boosted cities where globo-professionals are concentrated.
    At least if black crime were rampant in big cities, many urban professionals would be ‘mugged by reality’, but as cities became safer they reveled in cosmopolitan night-life and homo-centric decadence. They became comfortably Liberal.

    It would have been better for the American Right if all the big cities were falling apart like DC was in the 1970s and 80s. Imagine a DC that is 80% black today and filled with black crime.
    Imagine a NY that has more crime now than in the 1970s and 1980s.

    The power would be in the suburbs that lean rightward.

    This is why Coulter is so wrong to defend stop-and-frisk in NY. As NY became safer and cleaner and richer, it only helped the Libs. What’s the point of trying to protect the bastions of Libs from blacks? Do Libs try to do favors for bastions of Cons? No, Libs do their darned best to bring in more Mexicans into Texas so that GOP will lose it forever.

    Cities are the centers of Liberalism. We should support anything that brings down cities.
    So, as we watch Baltimore go up in flames, we should sing ‘Burn baby burn, disco inferno’.
    And hopefully Negroes will go wild in other cities as well.

    Jews look at the Middle East and say ‘let Shias fight Sunnies’. They look at Ukraine and say, ‘let slavs fight slavs’.

    I say we should look at Baltimore and other cities and say ‘let blacks attack libs’.
    Lib vs Lib War is cool by me.

  • Light from the East

    This sounds like less criminals in prison, more criminals on streets.

  • John Smith

    They’ll further cave on immigration next.

  • TCA

    Wow. All five RINO scumbags are in.
    Filth.

  • Weisheit77

    Flame me if you want to. I’m two hand shakes away from Hitler (through the Wagner family) and I’ve attended the Bayreuther Festspiel, and I descended from the people who fought the north, people who fought Cherokee in SC in the late 1700’s (the oldest ancestors that I know of were Germans who fled with the Huguenots in 1766; we settled in Abbeville, SC.) BUT WHEN DID DRUG PROHIBITION BECOME CONSERVATIVE?

    I can show you pictures from my own main street where you can buy every opiate available. You wonder where the police state comes from. Research the time they outlawed alcohol. America, outside of the mideast, still has the most stringent alcohol laws on the books. In my state 15 years ago, you couldn’t buy beer on Sunday. Finally they changed the “blue law” to make it like every other day, but they changed that after a year. Then someone said we need to limit the hours on Sunday.

    From my history understanding of the police state/tax state that we suffer under came about because of progressive jackasses. You want “Leave it to Beaver”, and I want “leave it to Andrew Jackson”. Let people do what they want to, just yank the safety net.

    It is through the precedent of alcohol prohibition that they got to drug prohibition and I think with a little bit of research I can show you that is how they have everything on your phone, internet, email, etc…

    I’m a paleo before paleo. Alcohol laws led to drug laws which led to terrorist laws and now your smart phone is your own personal spy.

    Jesus H. Christ.

    • Weisheit77

      And I voted for Pat Buchanan twice and Ron Paul twice.

      • Weisheit77

        God, do I hate Republicans and conservatives, and I’m a registered republican and conservative. Your fricking hang up on sex and drugs are destroying us, but the big wigs are going to let gay marriage slip through.

        Jesus H. Christ.

        • Weisheit77

          King James Bible
          But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right butt cheek, turn to him the other also.

          • ShermanTMcCoy

            I only have two. I can give you the benefit of the doubt the first time around, but go for the second and your ass is mine!

        • WJaMrenfan

          Republican showboating on side issues wastes money and energy. Check out the video from the AmRen 2015 conference where Sam Dickson reminisces about a conversation he had with the late Sam Francis. Dickson reports that Francis ticked off a list of at least 10 “constitutional amendment” scams that Republican fundraisers and other parasites used to make millions. Trivial things like an amendment to outlaw burning of the flag, another to ban abortion, and so on. These may be good causes in themselves, but when something won’t even pass Congress, it is not going to be an amendment. Dickson said these hucksters made, by Francis’ estimation, at least $500 million. This nonsense focuses people on side issues while the big ones get away. Watch the video if you have not seen it.

          • WJaMrenfan

            Here is one example of a Republican mesmerizing fraud who whips up enthusiasm, diverting efforts from key issues.

          • John Smith

            I’ve always thought that, but I like that someone put a number to it.

        • John Smith

          I’m not a big social conservative either, probably because I’m not religious. I take a fairly libertarian approach to things like this, even if they disgust me, and don’t want to use laws to enforce the social order, or to turn it on its head.

        • Hank Richter

          Agree with most of what you say, but let’s be honest here, the whole “sex” thing, it is the left who constantly beats that drum, admittedly most cons don’t handle it well, but you can’t possibly agree with all the bashing of boy scouts, bakers, florists, etc.

  • Hilis Hatki

    A good dose of reality is more dangerous than Heroin Speedball, no telling where it might take your thinking process.

  • The Skeptic

    I have a mixed view on this topic: 1) I am for the decriminalization of most drugs, because it’s a waste of resources to lock someone up for their consensual vices. 2) But, even if drugs were legalized, I doubt that crime would be substantially lowered. 3) Primarily because individuals who are inclined towards crime will simply migrate into a different criminal market, such as robbery.

    • John Smith

      I imagine it would be to the benefit of more whites than blacks though. I can see habitual users who are white, yet non-violent otherwise.

  • Diana Moon Glampers

    A great site. I am astounded by how many charges are dismissed. Makes you wonder why bother even charging them, except as a record of their (unpunished) crime.

  • Who Me?

    This country is too far gone for us to vote it back to sanity now. Look at the choices we will likely have for 2016! Can you possibly vote for either one of them without having a bad case of dry heaves? I don’t think anybody here could vote for Shrillary and look themselves in the face in the mirror in the morning. And as for the Republicans, who do you want? How about Jeb Bush, or maybe Ben Carson? Or maybe just anybody that looks like the lesser of the other evils?
    Both parties have managed to enrage the other and alienate their own constituents. On top of that, many people believe that voting is just a sham in any case. What “We The People” want is irrelevant and who we vote for is of no import.

    • AFlaVet

      If you don’t vote…you can guarantee that you’ll get bubba the impeached disbarred rapist and that shrieking hag back. I’d vote for a dog catcher before I’d let Killary in there. Anyone…anyone but her.

      • Who Me?

        Well, obviously vote to keep her out of there, that doesn’t even need saying, but it doesn’t really matter which of the other stuffed pumpkins get in there, they’re all bad. I don’t think there’s ever going to be a decent candidate , it’s a matter of doing your best to pick the lesser of two evils. It’s beginning to look like a war will be the only way to fix this country.

  • John Smith

    The secret here ought to be to give no leniency to anyone convicted of a non-violent offense who has a history of felony-level violence. Another thing is why are violent criminals allowed out of prison when they still have time remaining on their sentences?

    • how about this

      “why are violent criminals allowed out of prison when they still have time remaining on their sentences?”

      a) Prisons are seriously overcrowded and (at least in some places) under court order to do something about it.

      b) If you are a real psychopath, which of course many criminals are (and possibly even if you are not), you may be able to convincingly pretend to have reformed while in prison and convince the authorities that you are no threat to society anymore.

      • John Smith

        You’d think they’d let out the non-violent ones first, then the least violent if that doesn’t solve it.

      • AFlaVet

        Build more prisons…with the money they steal from the military and the VA. Matter of fact…take one whole state like Jersey, put a moat, a 100′ high fence around it and let them fight it out there. The Jersey Mafia will be the prison guards.

  • Hank Richter

    Not so sure it’s about letting violent people out, I think many are just pushing to end some of the drug hysteria. My mom was very anti-drug, but in her final two weeks of dying from cancer she did try cannabis, it seemed to help, so I don’t think that should have been illegal.

    I’m not a drug user nor do I recommend it, but I do know the “war on drugs”, much like the “war on terror” and the “war on poverty” is a complete failure and I’m no fan of it.

    • Sick of it

      They pretty much don’t prosecute people with terminal cancer for using anything, no matter how illegal. There’s a huge difference between that and starting little kids on drugs.

      • Hank Richter

        I don’t know to many people who support decriminalization that are trying to start little kids on drugs, let’s not get absurd here.

        • Sick of it

          Really? What a lot of these users won’t admit is that they started in junior high.That older people got them started on drugs back then.

          • Hank Richter

            Maybe, maybe not, at any rate having it illegal certainly didn’t stop them now did it, not to mention while I don’t use it myself I have done my research on MJ and it’s not the “refer madness” everyone makes it out to be.

            I confess that most people I’ve met who use pot do fit the “Cheech and Chong” stereotype, but at the same time, am I going to put someone in jail for it? I think there’s more serious things we need to be going after and making space for in our jails.

  • IKUredux

    Form a third party. One that is dedicated to the interests of Whites. Or, American Third Party. Hell, I’ll run for President. The party of S.P.O.O.C.

  • rebelcelt

    A lot of us are critical of Ann Coulter, but she is about the only mainstream commentator that has a clue.

    • AFlaVet

      Critical how? She certainly has more bialis than Boehner….and I wish she was the speaker of the house then Harry Reid would meet his match…the POS that he is.

  • AFlaVet

    Mod…what was wrong with that O’reilly video?

  • AFlaVet

    OK…I’ll try this…O”reilly pegs what’s wrong with Black America:

    http://www(dot)cnsnews(dot)com/video/national/oreilly-americas-race-problem