Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by philnotfil, Aug 20, 2014.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Could you elaborate?
You can limit some of the damage of the state in treating addiction like a medical condition, which it is, rather than a crime.
You can also legalize and better control the contents of the drug. This of course wouldn't eliminate drug markets as there are illegal markets for all types of legal goods, but it would help to tamp down the militarization and community destroying effects of policing associated with the WoD.
Sure, they are not in jail for simply possession of drugs. Many have committed very serious crimes in an effort to acquire the money for drugs or while on drugs. These are matters you don't fix by the legalization of drugs.
I don't know what % of inmates were arrested for simple possession their first time through the system, but as of 2012 a little over 40% of drug arrests were for possession of marijuana.
For a lot of the people who are being impacted by the war on drugs, the time needed to resolve an arrest, even one that doesn't result in jailtime, can be enough to lose a job.
The war on drugs destroys lives that weren't being destroyed by drugs. (and we haven't even started in on the erosion of civil liberties for all Americans, or the people killed by police raids at wrong houses)
Edit: I do agree that there are many problems that won't be fixed by the legalization of drugs. But I see the war on drugs as adding more damage on top of what drugs already do. We can't stop people from doing drugs, but we can stop inflicting more harm on them.
You mean like selling drugs?
Consider this. If I get caught with 1 OZ of pot, difficulties will ensue, including potential jail time (short), lawyer fees and fines. Heck, at that amount and given my lack of a criminal record, I could probably walk with nothing but fines (and perhaps a few hours in a holding cell). Now, take that same OZ and divide it into 10 equal bags and. . . Presto, possession with intent to distribute which I believe qualifies me for a 5 year stint here in Florida. Same substance, same amount, completely different result in terms of how LE approaches it.
So, how do you get them of the corners without this punishment. Easy. Consistent and regular raids where you confiscate their product and money. In other words, hit them where it hurts, in their wallets. Will clear the corners just as well and doesn't cost us a dime outside of the officer's hours. I mean, we've been following this policy for the better part of 40 years and it doesn't seem to be working. Based on the numbers, the punishments are not serving as a deterrent and, as the article points out, may be creating other problems as well.
Replacing low level distributors and sellers is no problem, theres an endless supply of labor. Its like the minimum wage job of drug dealing, there's a near endless supply of people to replace those who go out of circulation and into prison.
Which is why I advocate the approach I do. Take the drugs, take the drug money. No jail. Just go explain to your "Boss" why you don't have either.
This x 1000
I'll give you an example. Had a guy who worked for us about 5 years ago. Seemed like a good kid (black) and we knew he had a "background." We paid him $12/Hour. Not great. Not bad. But with wife and kid (and he admitted he was trying to stay out of the "life") it was hard to ignore the fact that he could make more than a month's salary in one night with a "batch" of crack.
In other words, the same reason Goldman Sachs packaged up crap mortgages and sold them as prime investment opportunities then backed up the crap with AIG default swaps. The same reason S&P and the other credit agencies gave them AAA ratings.
It all depends on your definition of functional.....
Risk reward man, but don't I'm not crying for someone when it's time to pay the piper.
How about not costing us 40K/Year to incarcerate?
I'm not crying either, just trying to explain the motivation. We got slow and we lost him. Where he is now, I do not know.
Good thing for G&S that your "risk/reward" statement doesn't apply to them. I mean, how awesome is that. Risk everyone else's money and blow it. Destroy the economy, run people out of their homes, ruin lives, marriages, etc. Get government bailout (from your former CEO/U.S. Treasury Secretary) of which some is used to give these same "risk takers" their bonuses that they "earned" by taking these risks. In the end, no real fines of substance, no real regulation put in place and nobody goes to jail.
So, tell me, who is the greater threat to society? These guys, or some kid selling dime bags?
So lets not jail anyone because it costs so much....
You're assuming that kid is only selling dime bags and not engaged in any other illegal activity.
You are correct with the Investment bankers, "too big to fail", I agree it was BS to bail them all out but I also don't think they were all knowing defrauding anyone.
As far as running people out of their homes....I really don't feel bad for most who bought way above thier means and or sucked out all the equity out of their houses and then pissed it away, only to cry poor mouth when the bank said "time to pay up." If you can't afford the note, don't borrow the cash.
No, let's not jail people for petty things (selling pot) because it costs too much. See the difference.
Then again, perhaps you work for CCA or are a stockholder. That would explain a lot.
You mean like bilking millions out of trillions? (Hint: I'm "assuming" he's being jailed for a crime he has been charged with).
Or are you talking about crimes he "might have done" but isn't charged with. Or maybe you're just talking about the machine from Minority Report that sees crimes before they happen.
Thanks for the daily dose of humor. Nah, they would never do anything like that (as if they weren't warned multiple times in the years prior). I'm curious what you base this compassion for the banker's moral intent on? That they went to good schools, wear nice suits, drive nice cars, have multiple homes, etc?
Not only did they know, they knowingly did their best to discredit anyone who challenged them.
So you content that the corporate prison machine is essentially in cahoots with the police. As far as I know LEO's are government agents. Perhaps I'm missing something but the only way prisons get more inmates is with more arrests and convictions. Are you asserting that there is some grand plan here?