Should drugs...

Satya said:
Well to put the topic back on track...

You were asking me how much it costs to lock up less than 1% of the total population or about 3.2% of the adult population.

My answer is I'm not sure how that is a relevant question as not all 3.4% of the adults who are behind bars are there for drug offenses.
Click to expand...
The statistics stuff was probably not a very substantial diversion, on both our parts.
I apologize for the hubris, if you really took offense to it.

Of course not everyone is prison is there for drug offenses.
However, they make up the single largest group of the incarcerated, and are WELL over the majority, with the number getting greater each year.
They're practically kicking out sex offenders and violent criminals to make room.

And if we account for the violent crime that can be indirectly linked to the legal climate of drugs, the picture is even more grim...

Substance control is THE single greatest issue in our legal and penal system today.
 
BenW said:
However, they make up the single largest group of the incarcerated, and are WELL over the majority, with the number getting greater each year.
Click to expand...

The biggest group is still violent offenders. Drug offenders usually make up less than a third. Where on earth do you get your statistics?

They're practically kicking out sex offenders and violent criminals to make room.
Click to expand...

That is actually true, but that has a lot to do with mandatory sentences for drug offenses.

And if we account for the violent crime that can be indirectly linked to the legal climate of drugs, the picture is even more grim...
Click to expand...

I'm assuming you meant the "illegal" climate of drugs.

Substance control is THE single greatest issue in our legal and penal system today.
Click to expand...

It's a big one.
 
Satya said:
The biggest group is still violent offenders. Drug offenders usually make up less than a third. Where on earth do you get your statistics?
Click to expand...
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/node/63
The Man said:
In 1995, 23% of state prisoners were incarcerated for drug offenses in contrast to 9% of drug offenders in state prisons in 1986. In fact, the proportion of drug offenders in the state prison population nearly tripled by 1990, when it reached 21%, and has remained at close to that level since then. The proportion of federal prisoners held for drug violations doubled during the past 10 years. In 1985, 34% of federal prisoners were incarcerated for drug violations. By 1995, the proportion had risen to 60%.
Click to expand...


Satya said:
That is actually true, but that has a lot to do with mandatory sentences for drug offenses.
Click to expand...
It has everything to do with rampant prison overcrowding.



Satya said:
I'm assuming you meant the "illegal" climate of drugs.
Click to expand...
The illegality of drugs is part of the legal climate...
Calling it the "illegal climate" makes no more sense than saying the "illegal system" instead of "legal system".
But, whatever.
Really pointless.
 
Satya said:
Interesting. I wonder why the difference between federal and state prisons.
Click to expand...
Federal drug laws are considerably less lax than many state's individual drug policies are.
But, dunno if that's the real reason.

Satya said:
As a result of mandatory sentences.
Click to expand...
It's probably one mechanism that contributes.
It's hard for me to care very much about how long or short they are sentenced for, when I don't think they should be in jail in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Yes.

I mean...*goes backs to read the first post which was carelessly skipped over the first time*


Oh, okay, the answer is still yes.
 
DefectiveCreative said:
A society that's been systematically lied to about the actual risks that drugs represent.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I'm all for ending the War on Drugs, but that doesn't necessarily mean legalizing drugs. It just means relaxing the enforcement of the laws and changing policy from imprisonment to treatment.
 
Satya said:
Frankly, I'm all for ending the War on Drugs, but that doesn't necessarily mean legalizing drugs. It just means relaxing the enforcement of the laws and changing policy from imprisonment to treatment.
Click to expand...

But relaxing enforcement on certain drug issues is a statement that those issues aren't worth prosecuting, and by doing that it's implicitly stating that those particular issues aren't considered "criminal" enough for prosecution. So if they aren't criminal enough for prosecution, why keep them illegal?
 
I have spent the greater portion of my life doing drugs

I have at one time or another abused
Heroin
Cocaine
Tranquilizers such as Valium and Xanax
and everybody's favorite, Booze

I am also a Chronic weed smoker
and love to dabble in MDMA and LSD

Lately, I have been going days and days at a time without anything, not even my precious weed.

I have begun to take St John's Wort to try and balance my Serotonin and to deal with subsequent insomnia, brought on from years and years of weed induced slumbers

I will say this, legal or not. Drugs can seriously fuck you up
emotionally,mentally and spiritually

The days I go sober now are like days of clarity. My feelings, though intense, flow freely, My thoughts are not slanted, My empathy and compassion for others, brilliant.
My reaction to things more level.
My temper more balanced
It is good to not be numb all the time.

When I consider the cost to me both financially and to my underachieving life, I can't believe I am about to say this, but it just might be a good thing drugs are illegal.
 
DefectiveCreative said:
But relaxing enforcement on certain drug issues is a statement that those issues aren't worth prosecuting, and by doing that it's implicitly stating that those particular issues aren't considered "criminal" enough for prosecution. So if they aren't criminal enough for prosecution, why keep them illegal?
Click to expand...

Relaxing enforcement in no way means that you don't prosecute people; it only means the power to determine the needed level of enforcement falls into the hands of the local law enforcement agencies.
 
I think and feel that drug possession, use, distribution, and sales should be decriminalized for those drugs classified as illegal in those regards. I also think and feel that a change of policy from one of punitive actions to one of education and assistance for those in need of help should go hand-in-hand with the act of decriminalization.

I base this thought and my subsequent feelings on my values as it concerns the moral right to liberty, the necessity to be able to choose in order to live a truly moral life, the ability to engage in consensual activity with others in all regards, including that of free trade, the importance of education as it concerns the individual and the overall effect of education on community, the elimination of a market that makes use of nonconsensual means such as violence as a means to an end, and my sense that natural consequences of actions chosen combined with compassion toward others in need are all that are needed for people to learn to the benefit of their person, and thus, those they love, and all who love them.


Namaste,
Ian
 
Last edited:
it shouldn't be legalized. What will happen to the murderous, ambitious drug dealers that keep the inner city economy going?:m035:
 
Satya said:
Relaxing enforcement in no way means that you don't prosecute people; it only means the power to determine the needed level of enforcement falls into the hands of the local law enforcement agencies.
Click to expand...

That's true in many cases but not all of them. For example, for the last couple of years in Portugal they've stopped prosecuting people for possession (dealing and trafficking are still illegal though) and it's worked, there's been no related increase in drug usage or drug related crime and it's freed up the police to tackle other/real crimes.

So with that in mind wouldn't it make sense for them to now consider taking the "crime" of possession off the statutes altogether?
 
DefectiveCreative said:
That's true in many cases but not all of them. For example, for the last couple of years in Portugal they've stopped prosecuting people for possession (dealing and trafficking are still illegal though) and it's worked, there's been no related increase in drug usage or drug related crime and it's freed up the police to tackle other/real crimes.

So with that in mind wouldn't it make sense for them to now consider taking the "crime" of possession off the statutes altogether?
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be a deterrent if they did.
 
DefectiveCreative said:
It's not a deterrent anyway, and it never was, hence why there's been no increase in drug use.
Click to expand...

This.

A lot of people try drugs just because they're illegal and it adds to the glamour or "cool" factor. I've read in more than one place that cannabis usage in the Netherlands actually went down after it was decriminalized in Amsterdam.

Me? I never gave a shit either way. The first time I smoked pot, it was because a guy in my class asked me if I wanted to smoke with him at lunch. I never thought about the legal aspect of it, or any other drug for that matter. The only time I'm worried about legality is when I'm holding and I see red and blue lights in my rear-view mirror.
 
J. Cardigan said:
A lot of people try drugs just because they're illegal and it adds to the glamour or "cool" factor. I've read in more than one place that cannabis usage in the Netherlands actually went down after it was decriminalized in Amsterdam.
Click to expand...

Same thing happened in the UK when they lowered cannabis from a Class B drug to Class C, cannabis use went down. When they raised it back to a Class B drug again, cannabis use went back up.

The Government's reasoning for raising it back to Class B? Having it at Class C was "sending out the wrong message" about drugs. So in the minds of the UK government doing something that leads to fewer people using drugs is the "wrong message".

Derp. =P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top