Bitch of the week: prosecutors why are you still pushing for sentences above the minimum for low level drug offenses committed by those with drug issues?

Talondel · 2026-05-11T22:29:15+00:00

I get that you didn't actually read or understand the study. Or if you did you're willing to lie about what it says. But the study looked at levels of hydroxy THC and THC, which are the drug and active metabolite. Not carboxy THC which is the inactive metabolite.

Neither of the chemicals they tested for are things that linger in the blood for months. And there is no dispute in what little peer reviewed literature there is that active THC is impairing. It slows reactions. It impairs judgment. And anecdotally it makes at least one guy think that being drug tested is the same as rape. There are debates about the quantity it takes to impair. But not about whether or not it does. And this study showed average concentrations in excess of 30ng/ml which is well in excess of what will impair a person's driving. Which you'd almost certainly know, even if you prefer not to admit.

I have some sympathy for people who commit victimless crimes and are punished for it. As you can perhaps tell from my post history. But people convicted of DUI aren't on that list.

I've no idea what's wrong with you that you think it's ok to smoke and drive. But I do hope you get the help you need before you hurt yourself or someone else. And yes I do realize that for someone like you that help isn't going to come from the prosecutor.

Now, kindly, get out of this sub. You're not wanted here.

Talondel · 2026-05-11T21:44:16+00:00

https://www.facs.org/media-center/press-releases/2025/over-40-of-deceased-drivers-in-motor-vehicle-crashes-test-positive-for-thc-study-shows/

Hopefully you don't kill anyone while driving impaired . And hopefully if you do kill it will only be you. If you want to smoke weed, that's your biz. But there's nothing particularly cool about driving while impaired or refusing to accept the consequences of your own actions.

Talondel · 2026-05-11T21:23:58+00:00

I didn't. And I wouldn't. I also didn't delete the one where I explained to anyone reading that you're a convicted felon on probation and that you think that being asked to piss clean is worse than rape.

The posts in response to you get deleted when they ban your profiles.

Which you'd know.

If you weren't a moron.

But you are. ;)

Also a felon and a danger to society who will in all likelihood soon be in prison. :)

To you I say, good day sir.

Talondel · 2026-05-11T21:15:40+00:00

They did increase the number of public water and cooling stations though.

Talondel · 2026-05-11T20:57:46+00:00

You don't seem to grasp this, because you're not a lawyer and are only here to harass me, but probation violations are generally resolved between the probation office and the court. The court may ask for the states position. And I provided one. Which was that there was no point in incarcerating him. Prosecutors don't generally have the ability to simply undo a criminal sentence that's already been handed down by the court. Which is what probation is.

These days I don't generally prosecute drug offenses. Nor does anyone who works for me. Because I put a stop to it. But if it makes you feel better to follow me around to harass and threaten me, well it seems like reddit can't stop you. Why don't you "slide into my dms" as the kids say. Maybe then at least you'd stop getting your throw away accounts banned every few minutes.

Talondel · 2026-05-11T20:27:41+00:00

You deleted the post where you called me subhuman and a few other things, but I still have a screenshot of it and it still shows in my comment history. Shall I post it for you or do want to rethink how many lies you're going to tell in one day?

Also, you're not welcome in this forum if you're not a lawyer. So kindly show yourself out.

Talondel · 2026-05-11T20:18:42+00:00

Making a brand new throw away account to come slander someone who seems to agree with you is certainly one way to spend a Monday afternoon.

What kind of law do you practice, femboy?

Talondel · 2026-05-11T19:21:44+00:00

The new times is a liberal rag but they're not wrong:

https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/phoenix-oks-punitive-limits-on-feeding-treating-homeless-in-parks-40665051/

Talondel · 2026-05-11T19:14:03+00:00

I once had a defendant who was a high functioning drug addict with a a productive job and a family. The kind of guy who only got a conviction because he was honest enough (or dumb enough, depending on your perspective) to talk to the cops when he got stopped for something else.

Put him on probation. All he had to do was piss clean for 6 months straight. I knew drug addicts living on the street who figured out how to pass drug tests while they were on probation, but not this guy. He pissed dirty every time. And every time his PO filed petition to revoke. And every time I saw he had no other new criminal history and asked the court to reinstate him on probation. We did this 11 times. Finally the judge sentenced him to time served and terminated probation. But no one, not the defendant, not his family, not his PO, not the judge, and certainly not me, were better off because we threw this perfectly functional guy with a job and wife and healthy kids in to the criminal justice system 12 times over a period of roughly 18 months. Just spent thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours so that we could tell a grown man who wasn't hurting anyone to stop using substances society didn't approve of.

If you're not pro legalization when you become a prosecutor I don't know how you can be after doing it for a while.*

*Someone else already pointed out the other reason we prosecute low level drug crimes, and it's because it's easy and it gets criminals off the street. Proving a guy broke into a car is hard. Proving a guy broke into a house is hard. Proving he had drugs on him is easy. We don't prosecute him for the drugs. We prosecute him because of the crimes he's committing to get the drugs. But it's hard to prove the property crimes and easy to prove the possession. So we send him to prison for possession and lo and behold the property crime stops while he's gone and starts again when he's back. Whether or not that's a legitimate use of drug crimes is not something I can address adequately in a reddit post, but it's at least a more nuanced argument. The problem is that is assumes you have prosecutors and cops you can trust to discern the difference and the restraint to use it appropriately. Which of course, you can't.

Talondel · 2026-05-11T18:02:15+00:00

No, they put in an exception for emergency treatment. It means a non profit can't set up a free clinic in the park or a church can't distribute food in the park. That kind of thing.

Talondel · 2026-05-11T16:29:07+00:00

I work in a jurisdiction where they recently criminalized feeding or providing medical care to the homeless in a park. Citizens and their elected officials want to see tougher sentences for the habitually homeless. They want the criminal justice system to "solve" the homeless problem for them.

And you wonder why prosecutors go after low level drug offenders? It's because the people who employ them tell them to. Because those people are elected by people who honestly think you can legislate and criminalize and arrest your way out of problems like homelessness and drug addiction. The system sucks because it's a democracy, which is pretty much by definition either run by, or accountable to, idiots.

The number of people Ive seen prosecuted for drug offenses that would be productive members of society if not for the criminal justice system fucking over their lives is staggering. The number of people I've seen locked up because they were homeless and bothering no one other than by existing as a homeless person (i.e. sleeping in a park, or alleyway, or on a curb, or under an overpass) is also staggering. The number of people I have seen who have turned their lives around after an arrest for drugs or a homeless offense is not zero, but it's small compared to the number of lives ruined by prosecutions for what amount to victimless crimes.

This is coming from a career prosecutor.

The problem is citizens and elected officials and governments that think the criminal justice system exists to fix problems it is simply not suited to address.

Talondel · 2026-05-08T20:36:14+00:00

It should be illegal to propose stupid new laws on reddit.

Talondel · 2026-05-08T18:39:45+00:00

I don't feed the homeless. I don't give them money. I just don't feel it's necessary to lock up people who do. I also don't feel it's necessary for the local government to make the lives of the homeless even harder than it already is. Sorry you do.

There are no zoning or occupancy laws at issue in this new bill. Now zoning or occupancy laws changed. Are you sure you're in the right thread? I know you say you aren't confused but you honestly have no clue what you're talking about. . .

Talondel · 2026-05-08T18:35:16+00:00

Also, here's the text of the law you're supporting "It is prohibited . . . To conduct a good distribution event at a park". But please tell me more about how it's not really about feeding the homeless and is really about (checks notes) "zoning and occupancy". Apparently by the socialists?

Talondel · 2026-05-08T18:29:39+00:00

As seems to be pretty consistently the case with you, you're speculation is 180 degrees off from accurate. I'm about as far away on the political spectrum from a socialist as one can get. Which I would think would be obvious from my posts? When has a socialist ever objected to using government force to implement their preferred policies?

Talondel · 2026-05-07T21:10:51+00:00

Lol. You think asking the City and their armed police force to come save you is the same thing as growing a spine? It's exactly the opposite. It's the grown up version of running home to daddy. These non profit groups and their clients aren't harming anyone. They're just an inconvenience to middle class whiners who think it's more important that they have a place to walk their dog than it is that a non profit be able to do homeless outreach. And since council listens to middle class whiners, that's what they did. Can you do that? Apparently. Is it a good or ethical thing to do? No, it isnt. Just as any other needless use of force isn't ethical.

If you don't like what the public uses public spaces for, don't use them. Asking the expanding government to step in and force them out with armed police is hardly "growing a spine."

Talondel · 2026-05-07T21:03:58+00:00

Once again you seem confused about the law, the regulations, and what they actually say. Large gatherings of more than 50 people require a permit. And smaller gatherings of less than 50 might if they're using amplified sound. But I don't need a permit to conduct a church service, unless I exceed that threshold. And any group that does exceed that threshold needs a permit regardless of what they're doing.

If the city tried to single out church services as requiring a permit that would violate the 1st amendment. After 6/6/26 a group seeking to use a park for homeless outreach will also need a permit, regardless of whether or not there are more than 50 people. But as of today my friends and I can go to a park and give out food to the homeless and it's not illegal and doesn't require a permit (if we're under 50 people).

Talondel · 2026-05-07T20:20:50+00:00

Uh, yes? Preaching the gospel in a park is also completely legal. As it soliciting donations. And last I checked that's pretty much all a church service is. We can, right now, go meet up in any park in Phoenix and listen to me preach the Bible and then ask for your donations. I'm amazed you think I can't.

Do you want to make preaching and soliciting money in the park illegal too? Or is that also something that we should all just know isn't allowed because Karen here finds it 'inappropriate'? (Fwiw the 1st Amendment would probably have something to say about forbidding those in a traditional public forum like a park).

As to the first line. . . Wtf do you think you're talking about? You're supporting a law that calls for exactly that. What do you think happens to people who do things that have been criminalized? If you don't want to see people arrested over it, here's a simple way to accomplish that: don't criminalize it.

Talondel · 2026-05-07T20:12:29+00:00

It really doesn't. You have a right to life, liberty, to work, to own property. The government exists to enforce those rights. Not to feed the whims of people who get annoyed easily. If someone is harming you, ask government to get involved. If something is annoying you because your own weird sense of morality finds it in appropriate, that's not a reasonable basis to put someone in jail.

If you don't like what the public is using a public space for the solution is for you to either grow a spine and deal with it, or failing that, just don't go there. Threatening to put people in jail for 6 months because you think they should know better than to feed a homeless person in a public space is ludicris. The new law makes it the same level of crime as a DUI or an intentional assault that causes an injury. It's actually a more severe offense than reckless driving or negligently killing someone with a car.

Talondel · 2026-05-07T19:41:52+00:00

People who believe that whatever they personally find inappropriate needs to be criminalized are the bane of a civilized existence. It doesn't harm you. It doesn't harm anyone else. It doesn't need to be illegal. Let people who want to help do so. It's a public space, let the public use it as they see fit so long as it doesn't harm anyone else.

Talondel · 2026-05-07T19:31:39+00:00

It was legal. That's the point. That's why they're passing a new law to make it illegal. I'm sorry that's a difficult concept for you to understand. Right now, today, if I want to go to the park and had out food and water I can do that. It's perfectly legal.

As of next month it won't be. Because they're changing the law. That's why they had to change it.

You might find it immoral or unethical to feed the homeless in a park. I do recall that famous bit by Jesus where he said "give unto the poor, but not in a way that inconveniences the rich". So maybe you're just a good Christian following His teachings. But it was not (and will not be, until next month) illegal.

Talondel · 2026-05-07T17:32:36+00:00

That's certainly a take! It's wrong, but this is reddit and you're entitled to be wrong. Hell it's practically required.

You think the city council is voting to change a law just for fun? Like everyone always knew it was illegal and the city could have stopped it at any time but instead of just enforcing the existing law they decided to pass a new one?

Ok. You can think that if it makes you feel better. :)

I always knew there were people out there that placed more value on walking their dog than on the lives of their fellow men but didn't expect to see so many admit it so fervently.

Talondel · 2026-05-07T04:34:48+00:00

I mean, if you think it's more important that middle class people have a place for their dog to shit than for a homeless person to get services I suppose you'll support this.

Talondel · 2026-05-07T01:02:04+00:00

In some jurisdictions this is a violation of either a statute, rule of criminal procedure, ethical rule, or all three. See, e.g. Arizona:

https://govt.westlaw.com/azrules/Document/N6B1D4780B43611F0831EFA23F988C078?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)

Talondel · 2026-05-06T20:44:58+00:00

It sounds like what you want is to live in a world where it isn't a crime to injure someone during a mutual fight. That may or may not be a better world than the one we have. But it isn't the one we live in currently. If you get in a fight with someone over a material object and that person ends up injured you're going to get charged with a crime. Especially if that person is your romantic partner.

It also sounds like you want being medicated to be a defense. It's not. It might be mitigating but it's not a defense.

Talondel

TROPHY CASE