"This is not a question of higher taxes, but one of better spending priorities in Salem."

I'm curious what you think of the amount we spend on mandatory minimum sentences, enforcement of laws against recreational pot use, and other rising budget items related to crime. Do you see a problem there that we could address, or are you only referring to spending priorities like light rail?

It's your blog, so obviously you should talk about what you want, but I'd genuinely like to know your take on those things.

We know your Hot-Buttons Jack, and you do a good job of pointing out frivolous programs in government, but talk little of money spent on government programs we can't afford, and arguably do not need, simply because we cant afford them, no matter how well intended.

Law 'won't be there when we need it.' Ha!
Law is already NOT there.
It choked and died when fed Poppy Bush's bu!!sh!t that Clarence Thomas was "absolutely the best appointment" to the Supreme Court.
Just in time to illicitly 'rule' on his son Jughead's ordination, unlawfully.

And the illegal injust corruption goes on flowing downhill from there, into every local department such as the local D.A. office made to suppress indictment of Governor Child-molester, back when Poppy started it, or made to suppress indictment of broadcasting seditious statements such as Lars does, today.
(In fact, Lars was (1995?) named defendant in Court and he paid $20,ooo to escape judgment.)

On May 1 the United States celebrates Law Day, U.S.A.. It is meant to reflect on the role of law in the foundation of the country and to recognize its importance for society.

talk little of money spent on government programs we can't afford, and arguably do not need, simply because we cant afford them, no matter how well intended.

You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension.

JulieinSE,

There is a tremendous savings with Mandatory Minimum Sentencing.

http://www.crimevictimsunited.org/measure11/presentation/pdf/cvu_measure11_charts.pdf

crimevictimsunited (if I may call you that): Thank you for the information. I will look it over later in detail. There's definitely a lot I didn't know about, like just how much the violent crime rate dropped in Oregon. I don't see anything about the cost to government, though (compared to no mandatory minimum sentencing). Can you point me to which page shows tremendous savings? Thanks.

Not quite sure what "savings" you're referring to in that packet crimevctimsunited, but it's not cost savings. There is, without question, more people in prison for a longer time with Measure 11 than without. This report says we would need 2,900 fewer prison beds without it (see page 11): http://www.oregon.gov/CJC/docs/Measure_11_Analysis_Final.pdf?ga=t

I assume those prison beds aren't free.