My argument is that a particular statement is not backed up by the book it is used to sell. You've twisted that pretty far to end up with the opportunity to moralize at me.
My logic isn't that we should ignore sentencing problems in the US, my logic is that bringing bullshit book marketing into the discussion is counter productive.
I'd be interested in exactly which of my statements you view as a casual dismissal of the problems with the justice system.
I said The book claims "How can the average American commit three arguable felonies in the course of a given day?". Yet your example of charge stacking is contingent on carrying a felonious amount of drugs, something the average (mean, median and mode!) American avoids doing., but that wasn't to dismiss anything about the sentencing in those situations, it was to point out that you probably don't want to argue the blurb from the book if you are having a discussion about drug sentencing.
My logic isn't that we should ignore sentencing problems in the US, my logic is that bringing bullshit book marketing into the discussion is counter productive.
I'd be interested in exactly which of my statements you view as a casual dismissal of the problems with the justice system.
I said The book claims "How can the average American commit three arguable felonies in the course of a given day?". Yet your example of charge stacking is contingent on carrying a felonious amount of drugs, something the average (mean, median and mode!) American avoids doing., but that wasn't to dismiss anything about the sentencing in those situations, it was to point out that you probably don't want to argue the blurb from the book if you are having a discussion about drug sentencing.