Haymaker - Viewing Profile: Posts - SECTalk.com

Jump to content

Welcome to SECTalk.com

Welcome to SECTalk.com -- The Home of 6 Straight National Titles!

You are currently accessing our site as a guest which means you can't access all of our features such as social groups, sports betting, and many more. By joining our free community you will have access to all of these great features as well as to participating in our forums, contacting other members, and much more. Registration only takes a minute and SECTalk.com is absolutely free, so please join today!

If you have any problems registering or signing in, please contact us.

Countdown to Kickoff
Countdown Jersey Thread

Latest Topics

Latest News

Top High Fived

Top Bettors



Member Since 19 Oct 2011
Offline Last Active Today, 07:32 AM

In Topic: Week 1: West Virginia vs. Alabama (in Atlanta, GA)

Yesterday, 06:58 PM

 BulldawgFan, on 27 August 2014 - 05:52 PM, said:

With Depreist out gonna change anything?

Haven't heard he was gonna be.....they won't strap the whole load on his back cuz he did miss some summer recouping from a nagging injury

In Topic: My Boy Al

Yesterday, 12:54 PM

 A. Pilgrim, on 27 August 2014 - 11:35 AM, said:

ohhh...so, we dont CARE as much about those who get addicted to cocaine, because we assume there are less of them due to how expensive it is?

But that still doesnt answer the question- why have harsher penalties for crack vs cocaine? i mean, does it COST anything to have equally harsh penalties? What's the 'downside' to having equally harsh penalties?

Dude, do you not get all of the dynamics?

Poor people are more likely to do drugs and if and when they get addicted, they don't have the support system and/Or insurance that non poor people have.....the chance of epidemic was writing on the wall, hence the harsh deterrents. ....hindsight is 20/20, obviously it didn't deter like they hoped, thus the subsequent worsening of the already existing poverty, and this the new thinking of drug laws and tell beginning.g of prohibition going away

In Topic: My Boy Al

Yesterday, 11:33 AM

View PostA. Pilgrim, on 27 August 2014 - 11:31 AM, said:

I read it- maybe I misunderstood it.

Hey, looking at the prison populations- do you think harsher drug penalties for crack as opposed to those for cocaine has been successful?

And if deterrence were the name of the game- why not just have EQUALLY harsh penalties for both crack and cocaine? Both are incredibly addictive, dangerous.

The chance.for millions to get addicted with crack. But not cocaine, again because of the affordability

Drug war has not worked.....prohibition going away gradually with generation changeover

In Topic: My Boy Al

Yesterday, 11:32 AM

Point being the govt saw the huge potential for crack abuse given its affordability and wanted to severely deter

In Topic: My Boy Al

Yesterday, 11:28 AM

View PostA. Pilgrim, on 27 August 2014 - 11:25 AM, said:

so you think that crack has harsher penalties because Big Brother wanted a reason to lock up more poor people, regardless of race?

No....you do realize that punishment is for deterring crime, the more serious the crime the more serious the punishment, no?

And if so, you did read my post, no?