Jim Martin Fact #18: Voting against tough penalties for drug dealers

posted at 10:30 am on November 15, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

I’m no great fan of the war on drugs; it’s mostly failed to stop drug usage in the US and it’s imprisoned hundreds of thousands of people for the crime of mostly harming themselves. However, I do believe that law enforcement needs to keep drugs away from children, and that harsh penalties should come to those who sell drugs in neighborhoods where children go to school. So did all Georgia lawmakers in 1990 … except one:

Jim Martin was the only one who voted against a measure in 1990 that made drug dealing within a thousand feet of schools a felony, rather than a misdemeanor (SB204). This proposal was so controversial that it passed by a vote of 150-1.  Martin also voted against mandatory minimum sentences for drug dealers, and opposed the elimination of parole for violent felons.  Those latter two could be debatable, but only Martin debated making drug dealing near schools a felony — making him the lone member of the fringe of his own party.

Who is this guy?  Is this the best Democrats could do against Saxby Chambliss?

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


Comment pages: 1 2

Regarding personal attacks, what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Burying your head in the sand does not equal an “argument” or a “substantive case.” Indeed, your repeated failure to answer basic questions reveals the bankruptcy of your prohibitionist position. In this regard, I am still waiting for your answer about the moral nature of our nation pre-1933.

I am sorry for the bad things that have happened to you and your close friend as a result of drugs. However, you must try to remove yourself from the indefensible corner you have backed yourself into with respect to this issue (think Plato’s allegory of the cave). If you are correct (which you are not), then nearly all of the conservative principles our country are based on are false and worthless. If you are unable to apply the same limited government rationales to the issue of drugs that we so freely apply to issues like, e.g., gun-rights, then you are undermining those arguments too (i.e., my point about being a consistent conservative).

Nobody sane wants a ridiculously broad and disastrous open-book policy with respect to drugs just like nobody wants law-abiding gun owners to own bazookas and surface-to-air missiles.

There is a line to drawn on drug policy but what I am saying is that we need to re-draw it for the 21st Century. If our party is on the correct side of this issue (which it presently is not) then we can attract a tremendous amount of new voters to our side and, at the same time, make new policy that actually works for everyone and saves a ridiculous amount of taxpayer dollars.

sayabule1 on November 17, 2008 at 1:27 PM

Indefensible corner? On the contrary, I’ve repudiated just about every nonensical fallacy you and your pals have put forward, including the ‘outlaw out-of-wedlock sex’ argument, the ‘reintroduce prohibition’ argument, the ‘you just wanna keep it illegal because you can’t handle it’ argument, the ‘victimless crime’ argument, ad nauseum. Enough. You’re not allowed to take a drubbing and then stagger away declaring victory. You want me to address pre-1933 mores and respond as to the differences between now and then? I guess I could go on at length about increased public awareness of the drug problem due to the advent of new communications technologies, or hold forth at length on the revolution in distribution potential of drugs because of the dramatic enhancements in transportation infrastructure, or touch upon the increased migration of large numbers of people from rural environments to urban centers, where the potential for a wildfire-like spread of the drug problem is exponetially increased with poverty and population density. And so on. But what would be the point? You’re posing another off-track query with little or nothing to do with the core issues involved. As it is, I’m on the right side of the law here. The onus is on you to persuade others to your way of thinking. Declaring your particular ‘truth’ about drug legalization to be self-evident doesn’t work if it isn’t self-evident.

troyriser_gopftw on November 17, 2008 at 1:54 PM

I’m sorry, but did you say we would attract a ‘tremendous amount of new voters’ if the GOP took a pro-legalization stance? LOL. Aside from the fun of imagining the possibilities of a Free Munchies For Everybody platform, I don’t think we would attract a ‘tremendous’ number of GOP voters. The people you have in mind are no doubt part of that much-talked about and rarely seen ‘youth vote’, and you know what they say about the youth vote. Besides, changing principled, carefully considered positions solely to pander to various demographics isn’t the GOP way. That’s what Democrats are for.

troyriser_gopftw on November 17, 2008 at 2:09 PM

If being stupid were a crime you would definitely being serving a life-sentence. Also, if you think you are on the correct side of this issue than you are delusional.

As for the rest of you “conservatives” out there, if you want to know why the Republican party is on the decline than please carefully review the postings of troyriser_gopftw. If you think that our current drug policy is wonderful, than good luck buddy, you are f-ing lost…

sayabule1 on November 17, 2008 at 2:19 PM

Oh, I’m sorry, cupcake. Hurt feelings? And FYI: I never said our current drug policy is wonderful. I advocate continued illegality for those drugs already illegal, but believe the war on drugs can be waged more imaginatively and effectively, at less cost. Meanwhile, why don’t you hang out with your buddies and sit around and talk about how we’re all, like, tiny but significant particles of this, like, giant macrocosmic machine, man, debate whether Spider Man 3 was better than 2, and wonder aloud why aliens are so insistent on anal probes. Keep the window cracked in case your Mom comes down the basement stairs to do laundry.

troyriser_gopftw on November 17, 2008 at 2:41 PM

LOL…based on your posts it sounds like you have a tremendous amount of experience with “anal probes.” In fact, you should leave your name, address and phone number on your next post so I can call the authorities and tell them to make sure you are not holding any children hostage in your house the same way your parents forced you to serve them.

BTW, I take back what I said about being sorry for whatever happened to you and your meth lab buddy. Too bad you did not get a chance to join him in the campfire at his house. He probably burned himself up laughing at the thought of your diminutive genatalia.

sayabule1 on November 17, 2008 at 3:09 PM

However, we have alcohol licensing and age requirements, as well as laws against public drunkenness and driving while intoxicated, demonstrating that alcohol use, while legal, is heavily regulated in our society, bounded within fairly tight strictures.
troyriser_gopftw on November 17, 2008 at 12:40 AM

We should deal with pot the same way and the government will see an increase in tax revenues.

Some interesting info.

Chimpy on November 17, 2008 at 10:17 PM

Rather disappointing end to what was an interesting discussion.


Reaps on November 18, 2008 at 10:33 AM

Comment pages: 1 2