[notch898a]

So not only do you now acknowledge you were lying about these programs (not) existing for non-drug offenses, now you're expecting me to take on your (shot) credibility that only drug-related offenses make it into the program. This is WRONG as evidenced by BOP's report which shows significant underlying offenses for RDAP participants in fraud, immigration, firearms, and "other" offenses.

https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-pu...

>he dependent defendant will never get a meaningfully shorter sentence

Up until the BOP report showed to me you were lying about the programs, I probably would have take your word on this. Now I'm not so sure. Would be interested in seeing the evidence that this never happens.

I have no idea what you're talking about regarding me operating off of "memes." They may exist, but they're not something I've looked for nor noticed.

[gamblor956]

I can see that reading comprehension is hard for you.

The programs you describe are not an alternative to prison for drug users convicted of non-drug offenses, which is what your original comment claims. And you keep harping on the FDAP program, which is a federal program for those convicted of federal crimes, not state level crimes, and which provides for substance abuse counseling within federal penitentiaries.

And I notice you deliberately avoid mentioning that your study was based on data collected from 2002-2010.

What's next? Are you also going to claim that Blackberry dominates smartphone sales, based on 13-21 year old data?

[notch898a]

>>>It's my understanding in some jurisdiction claiming a drug nexus makes you eligible for certain more attractive sentences or diversions...

It's a more attractive sentence. You're simply lying about my original comment.

You've cited nothing at all, so you're upset about a (May 2022 published) study with data from 2010 vs your mere word that opposes it? You're aware that studies look at data for things that already happened right, not the future?

>And I notice you deliberately avoid mentioning that your study was based on data collected from 2002-2010.

I cited it... the date was right on it. Not hidden. What's even your point here? It's not unusual for an informal citation to not include the date as part of the citation. And even were it I marked the publish date next to the citation it would be '22 and you'd probably still be moaning as '22 isn't the data of the data.

>federal crimes

My original comment indicate "some jurisdictions." Not all. But I will note that the vast majority of people in the US are subject in various capacities to federal jurisdiction, so it seems quite relevant. I guess you could argue the UN Headquarters is exempt, for instance.