The public image of lawyers is usually not very good.
I mean have you heard any good lawyer jokes lately? Neither have I. The trouble with lawyer jokes is that lawyers don't think they are funny and the public doesn't think they are jokes. Why are lawyers so subjected to ridicule and disdain? Well, partly because we don't like things that accompany bad luck, and if you're consulting a lawyer then chances are something in your life has gone rather seriously wrong. That is the meaning behind the old Chinese curse, "May your life be filled with lawyers."
But as professionals who see the constant stream of people going before the courts, lawyers as a group have a pretty good grasp of where society is at. You can't work that kind of gig and not pick up a little something of the street. So it is a major event when the Massachusetts Bar Association comes out publicly on a major societal issue, as the lawyers did today with their call for widespread drug law reform. According to their website:
Massachusetts must enact meaningful drug reform for nonviolent offenders, focusing on education and treatment instead of incarceration and punishment, according to a report of the MBA Drug Policy Task Force released today at the Statehouse. Mandatory minimum sentencing reform and diversion to treatment, alone, could save the state more than $25 million a year.
Converting from criminal prosecution of nonviolent drug offenders to treatment of their addictions is the overall message of the report, “The Failure of the War on Drugs: Charting a New Course for the Commonwealth.” A product of more than one year of research and consideration, the report was created by a task force of nearly three dozen prominent leaders, including lawyers, law enforcement, the judiciary, mental health professionals, physicians, social workers and public policy advocates.
The report’s recommendations would result in substantial savings. Specifically, diverting non-violent drug possession offenders to treatment instead of incarceration could save $8 million in annual costs. An additional $17 million in annual savings could be realized through mandatory minimum sentencing reform, including parole after two-thirds of a sentence is served in state prison and parole after one-half of a sentence is served in county correctional facilities.
Short-term recommendations include:
Implement diversion programs for nonviolent offenders with drug addiction;
Eliminate mandatory minimum sentences linked to school zones and other drug crimes;
Enhance opportunities for work-release, parole and “good conduct” credit;
Restore suspended and split sentences; and
Create a centralized bureau to handle treatment programs for nonviolent drug offenders.
All very wise recommendations and let's hope they are enacted soon.
Speedo Boyz
Steven Tyler of Boston's Aerosmith is lookin' pretty good on the beach these days, especially at the age of 61. The hair of course is dyed, but the rest you can't fake.
The same cannot be said of Pauly Shore, who at 41 is exactly twenty years younger.
Oh the paparazzi can be cruel.
We Kept on Truckin'
I didn't realize Bart's has ice cream trucks.
Bart's has been in business since 1976? That's the year I came to UMass. Me and Bart's - two success stories!
Leaning
Funny cups for sale in the Northampton gaystore.
Motherhood
In the Animal World
In the Human World
Today's Video
Too weird.
5 comments:
what makes you think that the fat ugly pig holding that child upside down is human? inhuman or maybe subhuman, but definitely not human
Steven Tyler looks great! Whoo-hoo.
Uhh..Tom, how do you reconcile the following two statements?
1)"Here's the first interview with the brave young patriot Ian Barry, who smoked pot in front of his entire high school." (You made this statement)
2)"Massachusetts must enact meaningful drug reform for nonviolent offenders, focusing on education and treatment instead of incarceration and punishment," (You said that you agree with this statement)
I actually agree with the second statement. Drug policy should be entirely a state-issue and it should be less concerned with punishing people. Do you really believe that? I doubt it. You've already declared this retard teenager a "brave young patriot" for lighting up a joint in his classroom. Can you please tell me how lighting up a joint instantly makes a person patriotic? I know a lot of dirtbags who smoke doobies. Apparently, smoking a joint is now an act of patriotism.
This is the entirely substance-free and rhetoric-driven argument of the psuedo-libertarian movement--"Oh, I PERSONALLY disagree, but who am I to say? I'm for freedom, I'm for choices. Yes, it's bad, bad, bad--but I won't interfere in anyone else's business." This is usually followed by some diatribe about the "religious right"-as if simple moral disaproval is a crime.
This argument is revealed in all of its nakedness when it is adavanced by people such as yourself who don't really mean it.
Isn't it funny how the same people who think that we should be fighting drugs with "treatment and education" consider all educational materials to be "propogands" if they actually tell people that drugs are harmful and addictive? Like I said in a previous response, drug dealers always seem to know so much better than anyone else that drugs are definitely NOT bad for you.
Incidentally, the so-called "libertarian" case for so-called "gay rights" is founded on exactly this fallacy. Real libertarians like Ayn Rand didn't fall for this shit.
"Because it involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises, but there is a psychological immorality at the root of homosexuality. Therefore I regard it as immoral. But I do not believe that the government has the right to prohibit it. It is the privilege of any individual to use his sex life in whichever way he wants it. That's his legal right, provided he is not forcing it on anyone. And therefore the idea that it's proper among consenting adults is the proper formulation legally. Morally it is immoral, and more than that, if you want my really sincere opinion, it is disgusting."
And you call yourself the Bay State OBJECTIVIST!
Ayn Rand believed that it should be legal for disgusting acts of sodomy to occur between men, but NOTHING MORE. She even believed that "discrimination" against homosexuals in the private sector was warranted.
Tom, you play this routine about how you're a cleaned up crack smoking junkie and how drugs are bad, but you still think that they should be legal because you're a "libertarian". But then you go and say that some dumbass who lit a joint at his school is truly patriotic for doing so. Can we cut the shit here?
Uhh...so-called "libertarians" really get my blood pressure up.
And another thing--even if marijuana were legal--and I think it should be--aren't some damned age restrictions appropriate? How old is this Ian? Isn't he a minor? I checked online--he's seventeen. Can't you at least wait until he's eighteen to declare him patriotic for doing something stupid?
Tom, there are many behaviors that I believe are wrong but should still be legal. Nonetheless, when I say that they're wrong, I MEAN it. The psuedo-libertarian crowd abuses this argument to dismiss the morality of a behavior when they can't defend the immorality of a behavior.
Postscript--I don't really think that smoking doobies is all that bad. A minor transgression, maybe. But it's not patriotic, and I've had enough of the fake libertarian argument and the psuedo-libertarian superiority that seems to be sweeping the Ronopaulian dimension.
BEN
Ben, you look foolish posting the same lame arguments. All I can do is repeat:
So what?
You look silly insisting that because I disagree with Rand's views on homosexuality that somehow I should reject her entirely.
Actually Ayn Rand was ahead of her time in her attitude towards homosexuality. Remember this was an era in which one could be arrested and sent to prison for gay sex and when raids by vice squads on gay bars were commonplace.
As the quote you site illustrates, Rand believed that this was wrong, that the government should not interfere in any way in gay activities nor should gays be denied any rights. The fact that she goes on to state that she finds gay sex acts "disgusting" is a mere statement of personal preference having no significance. What is important is that she fully endorsed complete freedom from persecution for homosexuals, a remarkably enlightened opinion for the times she lived in.
Your objections to homosexuality appear to be based solely on the mysticism of a fake religion, therefore by definition your views are irrational and unworthy of serious consideration. Please try to come into closer contact with reality before posting on this subject again.
And yes Ben, defying authority in defense of liberty is an act of patriotism, whether in a classroom in America or on the streets of Tehran.
Cute, Tom.
You know exactly what mean. You torture the libertarian argument, which is so common among psuedo-libertarians today.
My point is that you can be completely and absolutely opposed to things such as homosexuality and as long as you think that they should be legal, then you are a still making a libertarian argument. That's not a high threshold. Considering the fact that homosexuality is legal in all 50 states, there is nothing else to worry about in the libertarian's mind.
Of course we live in a society in which homosexuality-pushing agencies take our tax dollars to indoctrainte our kids. Also, they trample on our actual constitutional rights. So I suppose that defying authority in the defense of liberty would be a great act of patriotism. Something like MassResitance right? They're fighting back against the constant curtailment of our rights and must therefor be patriots.
BEN
Post a Comment