It's true that we have dug ourselves a pretty deep hole with it, but seriously, if drugs were legal tomorrow what's the worst thing that could happen?
You sound like you want to build a house with only $5, a few boxes and some duct tape. You would have to deal with all those individuals in prison who would be let go. All those who would appeal their sentences. Where would these people go, what would they do? What do you do with the prisons that now don't have as many inmates? Do people lose their jobs? What do drug enforcement agencies at various levels do? What do employers do about drug screening tests? What do you we do as far as treatment? This isn't like a switch where you can turn it on or off.
One of the difficulties in changing people's perception is that the propaganda against it has been very good at connecting the problems that only exist because of the laws themselves with the using of the drug. You don't become a gangbanger simply because you do drugs, you become a gangbanger because (since drugs are illegal) you can make a lot of money from them.
if you make any substance that people want illegal, it creates a black market which breed crime and violence.
if you outlawed red meat tomorrow, by next month I'll bet we could read about people killing each other trying to sell it.
We should have learned all this back during prohibition.
One of the difficulties in changing people's perception is that the propaganda against it has been very good at connecting the problems that only exist because of the laws themselves with the using of the drug. You don't become a gangbanger simply because you do drugs, you become a gangbanger because (since drugs are illegal) you can make a lot of money from them.
That's why you have to do more, rather than just saying "let's make it legal tomorrow!". Granted, with someone like Jethro you may have problems. But if you can get more evidence and more support for it, if you have a good idea and a good plan, you should be able to overcome the propaganda.
We should have learned all this back during prohibition
You keep referring to Prohibition. I can't remember, but I believe Prohibition lasted only a short time. They had their society, they went to prohibition, then they went back to things before. There was probably some change. We've had drugs be illegal for a long time. That's a lot to deal with and change. You can't just do that overnight.
that we are keeping them in jail for their own good?!
a lot of them would go back to their families.
What do you do with the prisons that now don't have as many inmates?
Put violent criminals in them. I mean, people will still commit violent crimes. It's just that we won't have to worry about prison overcrowding or consider privatizing our penal system anymore.
Do people lose their jobs?
Every day...people get busted for pot and get fired for it all the time, yes..oh...you mean all the prison guards and wardens and police and DEA and judges and lawyers and....etc...yes, they lose their jobs. And that's okay with me since it's you and me paying their salery in the first place.
What do drug enforcement agencies at various levels do?
oh...here's an idea...PROTECT US FROM THE TERRORISTS WHO USE THE FACT THAT WE HAVE AN UNDERGROUND SUPPLY OF CASH FOR THEM BECAUSE OF OUR PROHIBITION, that's what they can do...get jobs that actually protect people from someone other than themselves.
What do employers do about drug screening tests?
Stop wasting money on them.
What do you we do as far as treatment?
Treatment for what? Addiction?
People get addicted now, what are we doing as far as treatment now?
This isn't like a switch where you can turn it on or off.
well, then we had better get started
the first step is to get the politicians to stop treating it like it's political suicide to talk rationally about it. That's starting to happen some, but I agree, it's not as easy as just "'poof' you have repealed the law"
That's why you have to do more, rather than just saying "let's make it legal tomorrow!"...if you have a good idea and a good plan, you should be able to overcome the propaganda.
you also talk about people losing jobs, but with legalizing hemp alone you would create an entire industry. Now of course this industry would have to compete in the marketplace against the very people who helped give birth to the laws in the first place (unless they can find some way to make the substances their competitor uses illegal), and everyone knows that competition in a free marketplace is good for the economy.
What about those without families? Or those whose families won't take them back? These families can all of a sudden adjust to having this person back in their lives like that? How do they provide for themselves?
Put violent criminals in them. I mean, people will still commit violent crimes. It's just that we won't have to worry about prison overcrowding or consider privatizing our penal system anymore.
I know we will still have a need for prisons. But say we can consolidate criminals, what do we do with vacant prisons?
Every day...people get busted for pot and get fired for it all the time, yes..oh...you mean all the prison guards and wardens and police and DEA and judges and lawyers and....etc...yes, they lose their jobs. And that's okay with me since it's you and me paying their salery in the first place.
On the flip side, if we make this into a medical model of treatment instead of criminal, do we pay for those treatment programs? Do those get included in social services that we pay for? I would be worried that the money would just get redirected from drug enforcement into drug treatment.
Stop wasting money on them.
Still, you have to deal with employers who may discriminate based on drug usage. You would have employers who would have to come up with new policies regarding drugs. If someone needs treatment, what happens as far as who pays, how long they get, do they get to retain their job, etc.
Treatment for what? Addiction? People get addicted now, what are we doing as far as treatment now?
Yes, people do get addicted now. I'm not denying that. But if drug usage increases because it becomes legalized, there's a chance for increase in addiction. Do we have the facilities to treat that increase in addicted inviduals? Are we going to do anything about informing people more about the possible side effects of drugs?
the first step is to get the politicians to stop treating it like it's political suicide to talk rationally about it. That's starting to happen some, but I agree, it's not as easy as just "'poof' you have repealed the law"
There's a lot of work that would go into changing not only the laws, but making society ready for having drugs legalized. Yes, it's a step in the direction you want. I would want it too if it offers an overall better solution than what we have. There are just too many unanswered questions though.
Like what [that they didn't have to do after prohibition] specifically?
It's moreso the volume of what needs to be done. Things that need to be changed are on a greater scale.
that's why I'm talking to you about it
Yes, you're talking to me about it, and you've opened my mind slightly. But still, I'm not really for it because I feel there are just as many if not more problems that are presented by making drugs legalized, and I haven't heard a plan that comes close to really addressing all or most of the concerns.
you also talk about people losing jobs, but with legalizing hemp alone you would create an entire industry
Yes, I realize that it would creat jobs. Of course it would. People would have to make these drugs, would have to sell them. I don't know that the people who would be losing their jobs would be able to step into these jobs. Some yes, but not as much.
People would have to make these drugs, would have to sell them. I don't know that the people who would be losing their jobs would be able to step into these jobs
you act like there aren't any drugs now.
and the industry that I was talking about was hemp.
you act like there aren't any drugs now. and the industry that I was talking about was hemp.
I know there are drugs now. But if the federal government, or other companies want to make drugs that are now illegal, they would need people. As far as hemp, yes, you would need people to grow it, harvest, process, sell it all.
vacant prisons? perish the thought!
I would love to have vacant prisons if it meant that we all got along and nobody commited crimes. But I have a feeling that people will wonder what we're going to do with these prisons that we put money into. I'm just looking at a bigger picture and trying to think of all the things that could come up with a change like this. I think you need to do that.
OK. Let's empty the prisons crabs. I'm sure you won't mind a few doper/gang bangers moving in with your family. You seem to be very fond of them. You know. Help out the oppressed of society.
I know there are drugs now. But if the federal government, or other companies want to make drugs that are now illegal, they would need people. As far as hemp, yes, you would need people to grow it, harvest, process, sell it all.
lower unemployment? and this is bad how?
Let's empty the prisons crabs.
of non-violent drug offenders, absolutely.
I'm sure you won't mind a few doper/gang bangers moving in with your family.
I believe that a "gangbanger" is a violent offender. We need the prison space for violent offenders. Of course the number of "gangbangers" will decline rapidly, since there is no longer an underground market to fight over.
You seem to be very fond of them.
non-violent drug users?
yea...some of my favorite people are non-violent drug users.
Of course, most people are...non-violent drug users that is...so my odds were pretty good.
besides, who the hell are you to put people in jail just because you aren't "very fond" of them?
Lower unemployment isn't bad if it's meaningful jobs. What about those who lose their jobs because the drug laws get changed? Will unemployment really go down, or will it stay the same?
of non-violent drug offenders, absolutely.
I think something of interest will be those offenders who had drug offenses and other offenses. Are they going to be re-tried? Sentences reduced? What about those who committed violent crimes in order to get drugs? Will they be released? The way some lawyers seem, I could see this getting crazy.
I believe that a "gangbanger" is a violent offender. We need the prison space for violent offenders. Of course the number of "gangbangers" will decline rapidly, since there is no longer an underground market to fight over.
Will there still be markets to fight over though? I don't know how drug dealing will be implemented. Can you get the drugs from a federal store? Will others be able to sell? Will you have chains? If you have a rivalry like a McDonalds/Burger King, then might it get violent? It's part of the culture that they're used to. It's about profit to them, making money.
if someone commits a violent act, they don't just charge them with drug possession. And just because drugs are legal doesn't mean that crimes commited on drugs are somehow excused, no.
If you have a rivalry like a McDonalds/Burger King, then might it get violent?
if it's over something illegal, absolutely...that's the problem.
now, McDonalds and Burger King are indeed rivals, but since what they sell isn't criminal, they don't have shootouts in the street over it (Hamburgler excepted).
and besides getting violent is still against the law.
what I'm saying is that violent crime will go down if you stop creating a black market.
what other reasons do you have to continue to imprison people for breaking no laws except non-violent drug possession?
That's the law as it's written now. They have broken the law, so according to law, they go to prison. The reason I continue to do this as you seem to think is because I haven't seen a solution presented that thoroughly addresses many of the problems I see that may potentially arise by changing the laws.
That's the law as it's written now. They have broken the law, so according to law, they go to prison
so, when they freed the slaves, they should have kept the people who broke the law (as it was written) by helping free slave in jail to finish their sentences?
so, when they freed the slaves, they should have kept the people who broke the law (as it was written) by helping free slave in jail to finish their sentences?
If a law that was broken is repealed, then they should be released.
bad law is bad law.
This "bad law" is the step that society has taken to deal with drug problems. Again, you haven't offered any solution other than changing the law. If that's your proposal, you need a lot more to it to change peoples minds.
many of the problems I see that may potentially arise by changing the laws
you haven't presented any problems that we either current don't have already (only worse) because it's illegal, unless you think lower prison population and better police protection from actual crimes is a problem.
THe British figured out that all the time and effort the bobbies spent trying to stop pot smokers was a waste of time and resources since the pot smokers didn't present a crime problem outside of simply taking a drug.
The reason I continue to do this as you seem to think is because I haven't seen a solution presented that thoroughly addresses many of the problems I see that may potentially arise by changing the laws.
Help me out. What problems will arise by changing the laws? Do we still have the same problems, associated with boolegging, that we had during prohibition?
you haven't presented any problems that we either current don't have already (only worse) because it's illegal, unless you think lower prison population and better police protection from actual crimes is a problem
I've been raising questions to be answered and potential problems for about 50 posts now. I guess you've been ignoring them, or you only seem to focus on the facts that matter to you. I'm trying to take a holistic approach to this. Think of all the potential problems. If I'm giving you problems that we already have, are you saying that it's okay to solve a problem by just adding on to other problems? Doesn't really sound like a solution to me.
THe British figured out that all the time and effort the bobbies spent trying to stop pot smokers was a waste of time and resources since the pot smokers didn't present a crime problem outside of simply taking a drug.
I've said before, I'm not including pot in my arguments. I think they are a separate issue that need to be decided upon on its own.
This "bad law" is the step that society has taken to deal with drug problems.
it's a bad law.
it doesn't work.
it causes more damage than it could possibly hope to prevent.
Again, you haven't offered any solution other than changing the law.
that's because changing the law is the solution to a bad law.
If that's your proposal, you need a lot more to it to change peoples minds.
What part of the sky exactly do you think is going to fall if we change the law?
I mean, your arguments are the same as an old southerner saying "no way can we let these blacks be equal...society would have to make just too many changes. It's been this way for a long time now, you can't just go changing things on us"
if you have a bad law, you can't fix it by forcing the bad conditions it creates into prisons. You have to fix the law itself.
Help me out. What problems will arise by changing the laws?
I'm not going to repeat myself. You can read my posts in the last 100 or so posts on this thread. I've raised a number of concerns. Just go back and read them.
that's because changing the law is the solution to a bad law.
We could change it so that drug users earn a million bucks for using drugs. Or that they all get more social security than the rest of us. Or they can get free housing in Vermont. Are those good solutions? No, they're not, but they're changes. Just because you change a "bad law", doesn't mean the solution is going to be good.
I mean, your arguments are the same as an old southerner saying "no way can we let these blacks be equal...society would have to make just too many changes. It's been this way for a long time now, you can't just go changing things on us"
Jethro would say something like that. He's the stubborn mule. I thought you and I have been having a rational discussion. And I thought along the way I made it clear that if a good solution is presented, then I would be for it. The thing is, to me, it will involve a lot of change. I'm not against it if it means making a better society. If it makes us better, I would want it to succeed. You're just not giving me any plan to get behind, to cheer and support on. If you do, then yeah, I'd start arguing for it. Basically you're just giving one mantra. In a way I guess you're like a politician who just has one slogan or platform you're running on. "I'll be tough on crime!", "I'm the king of education!", "Lower taxes for all!".
if you have a bad law, you can't fix it by forcing the bad conditions it creates into prisons. You have to fix the law itself.
You have to convince a lot of people to fix that law. And you're not going to convince them unless you have a lot more to propose, a lot more planned out.
well, unfortunately, if you are arguing to not change the drug laws, the government says you are including pot.
To me, you're arguing to make all drugs legal. That I'm not for. I would really consider legalizing pot though. That's because of a few things. From what I know, it does have medicinal qualities. I do not believe it's very addictive. There also have been some states that have voted for it to be legalized, but the federal government repealed those laws I think. That I think is the fed government interfering with states rights. Pot I very well possibly could handle being legalized. The other stuff, no.
You would have to deal with all those individuals in prison who would be let go.
Deal with them how? They will be freed and then they go home. To live with family or friends til they get a job or start a business. Surely some of the money we will save from not incarcerating them could generate some jobs!
All those who would appeal their sentences.
Appeal it WHY? If the laws are repealed they will be set free and they won't have any sentence to appeal.
Where would these people go, what would they do?
They would go back to living their lives as they were before a bad law rudely interrupted them.
What do you do with the prisons that now don't have as many inmates?
Are you aware that prisons are overcrowded? But if we had to close some prisons, how would that be a bad thing?
Do people lose their jobs?
Probably not. But who are we talking about?
What do drug enforcement agencies at various levels do?
Many people are of the opinion that we have the current prohibition because the government wanted to find something for all the anti-bootlegging feds to do. Frankly, I think that we would be better off dismantling the DEA and the whole rest of the federal anti-drug machine. Here's a thought: they could investigate terrorists. Though a know the very idea would chill quite a few civil libertarians.
What do employers do about drug screening tests?
Discontinue them. That's some money saved for the bottom line. Probably would have a positive effect on the stock market.
What do you we do as far as treatment?
Same as now, but hopefully, more money could be diverted for it.
This isn't like a switch where you can turn it on or off.
You do have a valid point, but I don't agree that all these side effects would be an insurmountable social or economic burden.
Deal with them how? They will be freed and then they go home. To live with family or friends til they get a job or start a business. Surely some of the money we will save from not incarcerating them could generate some jobs!
What if they don't have a home? How easy will it be for them to get a job? Can businesses now disciminate against people who use drugs? Some of the money could generate jobs. The people who lose their jobs because of the changes in the drug laws would need jobs too. And would we be saving money, or just shifting it to treating those with drug addictions, or other needs that will arise with the change in laws?
Appeal it WHY? If the laws are repealed they will be set free and they won't have any sentence to appeal.
Appeal it because they had drug charges along with some other offense. Or some circumstance which they feel deem appeals. You know that if you change the laws there will be prisoners who will want to appeal if they can.
They would go back to living their lives as they were before a bad law rudely interrupted them.
Can they do that though? Can they go back to the same job? Will they have the same opportunities? What if they've been in jail for a long time?
Are you aware that prisons are overcrowded? But if we had to close some prisons, how would that be a bad thing?
Yes, I'm aware that prisons are overcrowded. One bad thing about it would that there would be some loss in jobs. I'm not really as concerned about it, but I know there will be people who will want to know what will happen to the empty prison facilities that are sitting there not being used, which they as citizens helped pay for.
Probably not. But who are we talking about?
I think I was asking either if people involved with drug enforcement lose their jobs, or if people who used drugs could lose their jobs.
Discontinue them. That's some money saved for the bottom line. Probably would have a positive effect on the stock market.
I don't know if drug screening tests would have an effect on the stock market or not. What happens though if companies still want to screen for drugs? If you're an employer, I don't think you'd want an employee missing time off of work because of a drug addiction.
Same as now, but hopefully, more money could be diverted for it.
Again, as I brought up previously, are we going to have the capacity to treat all those with drug addictions? Those that we release, have they been treated, or are they going to need treatment? Do we have enough facilities to treat a likely increase in drug addicts? Also, you were talking about saving money before, but now you're talking about diverting money. I don't doubt that you can save money on prisons and incarceration, but is the money going to be returned to people, or is it just going to be diverted somewhere else, still costing us the same amount?
You do have a valid point, but I don't agree that all these side effects would be an insurmountable social or economic burden.
At this point, I think it would be a burden. I don't know that it's insurmountable either. If you want to change this, I want a good, well-thought plan put together that we can implement and follow. I want a lot of issues addressed beforehand so it can be as successful as it can be. I'm just not getting that at this point.
you understand that this can be read as advocating putting the homeless in prisons as a solution for homelessness, don't you?
What? Huh? How the heck do you come up with that? What I'm advocating is that you need to think of those prisoners who may be released to no home to go to and having no money. Are you just going to release them to the streets? I doubt you would want to do that. I wouldn't want to either. But what do you propose doing about it? That's what I'm trying to say.
Can they do that though? Can they go back to the same job? Will they have the same opportunities? What if they've been in jail for a long time?
I'm sorry, but what the hell are you talking about?
Just what do you think happens when a non-violent drug prisoner gets parole or finishes serving his sentence?
We don't say to them, "look, I think your old job is no longer available and, well, you've been in here for quite some time now and the job market isn't like you remember it. Tell you what, for your own good, we better just keep you in here. Sorry."
What I'm advocating is that you need to think of those prisoners who may be released to no home to go to and having no money.
I need to let them out of jail is what I need to do. Now, if the reason they have no home is because the Feds confiscated it because of drugs, then yes, the Feds will have to return their home to them.
Are you just going to release them to the streets? I doubt you would want to do that.
you doubt wrong.
if they haven't done anything, yes, release them into the street.
why would I want to keep someone in prison just becasue they are poor?
It sounds like you are recommending a debtor's prison.
We don't say to them, "look, I think your old job is no longer available and, well, you've been in here for quite some time now and the job market isn't like you remember it. Tell you what, for your own good, we better just keep you in here. Sorry."
I know we don't do that. I'm not as stupid as you may think. How are they going to support themselves while they are looking for a job? How will the fact that they've been in prison for X amount of time affect their chance to find a job? I have a feeling you're going to have to legislate what employers can and can't do as far as using drug convictions or testing in order to hire a person. The job market sucks now, and it probably would suck even more if you add more possible applicants to it. Add on the fact that they've been incarcerated for a while, and their chances for finding a job isn't large. I'm not saying we keep them in there for it, I'm saying what are you going to do to help them get back into society and get them a job and support themselves?
ThoseMedallingKids - 11:14pm Apr 11, 2003 PST (#846 of 846)
What if they don't have a home?How easy will it be for them to get a job?
Few people are locked up for their whole lives. If you have a concern about this, then how is adding to the problem (locking more people up) helping out on the other end? This is not a problem that will "come up" when we lift prohibition. It's going on now. These problems are being addressed right now. Are they being addressed well? Probably not. But you won't help the problem by creating more of it by locking up more people.
Appeal it because they had drug charges along with some other offense.
Oh, I get it. Yeah, that could generate some appeals. But it's not likely to jam the system: Consider that hundreds of thousands of cases will never enter the system because: No more drug cases.
Can they do that though? Can they go back to the same job? Will they have the same opportunities? What if they've been in jail for a long time?
As I said above, these are not problems that do not exist today.
If you're an employer, I don't think you'd want an employee missing time off of work because of a drug addiction.
Same with alcohol addiction, no?
Do we have enough facilities to treat a likely increase in drug addicts?
We aren't likely to see an increase in drug addiction. Didn't see more alcoholism as a result of repealing prohibition, either.
but is the money going to be returned to people, or is it just going to be diverted somewhere else, still costing us the same amount?
Depends on what the feds do. That's why we have elections.
If you want to change this, I want a good, well-thought plan put together that we can implement and follow. I want a lot of issues addressed beforehand so it can be as successful as it can be.
Was the enormous cost of the war on drugs addressed beforehand? As I said above, it's really a red herring to talk about the social impacts, because you don't raise any impacts that will be increased over what we have now. In fact, the impacts are likely to decrease, because we aren't putting more people into the prison system and having to deal with their rehabilitation when they get out.
I need to let them out of jail is what I need to do. Now, if the reason they have no home is because the Feds confiscated it because of drugs, then yes, the Feds will have to return their home to them.
Okay, so you want to return their home. What happens to the people living in it now? How do we pay for all of this? What happens if people argue they lost stuff because of their drug addiction, are we going to reimburse them for that? These are questions that I feel are going to be asked and are going to need answers to.
if they haven't done anything, yes, release them into the street.
They have done something, they have broken the law as we have written today. If you want to change the law, then I think you need to prepare them and society for it before this release.
why would I want to keep someone in prison just becasue they are poor?
I'm not keeping them in prison because they are poor. You're failing to see the repercussions beyond releasing them. That is what I am trying to address. You seem to be against the criminal way of dealing with drug addicts, but you don't seem to be talking much about treating them. I'm asking the questions that get at how they will be treated after they are released.
These problems are being addressed right now. Are they being addressed well? Probably not. But you won't help the problem by creating more of it by locking up more people.
The laws are a way of addressing the drug problem. You think they are not being addressed well. I would want to see these problems addressed before a large number of prisoners are released, and I'm sure others would too.
Oh, I get it. Yeah, that could generate some appeals. But it's not likely to jam the system: Consider that hundreds of thousands of cases will never enter the system because: No more drug cases.
Yes, I realize that we would get less cases. But how are you going to handle those that do appeal? You plan on releasing that many people, there is going to be a big influx of appeals cases. Are you going to need to set up a special temporary court system to deal with these cases, or are these prisoners going to have to wait their turn? How will this influx of cases affect the prosecution of other cases which could include violent crimes?
As I said above, these are not problems that do not exist today.
So either you're just adding on to other problems, or you're fixing one problem with another problem? Or just replacing it?
Same with alcohol addiction, no?
If you make drugs legal, there will still be the stigma. There will still be companies that will not want drug users in their company. How will you handle those companies? Will you allow them to have those practices?
We aren't likely to see an increase in drug addiction. Didn't see more alcoholism as a result of repealing prohibition, either
Don't some drugs have a pretty addictive quality to them? Also, if you're going to make drugs legal and have it be profitable, you'll want people to come back over and over again right? Can you do that without people becoming addicted? That seems a bit risky.
Depends on what the feds do. That's why we have elections
And based on the arguments you've raised, I highly doubt drugs will get legalized soon. You guys could have something, but you just haven't fleshed it out enough. You haven't made it appealing to more people. To get this thing into law, you're going to have to win over a lot of people, and you're going to have to answer a lot of questions. You're not really even doing that with me.
Was the enormous cost of the war on drugs addressed beforehand?
Honestly, I don't know. I want to say no, and from the way you talk I'd say that's right. That's why I'm bringing up all of this. Is making this switch going to just cost us an enormous amount when it's all said and done?
In fact, the impacts are likely to decrease, because we aren't putting more people into the prison system and having to deal with their rehabilitation when they get out.
You want to release a heck of a lot of people and have them rehabilitated. Do we have the capacity to accomodate that number? That's what I am asking. Beyond that, what procedures will there be for drug users? What programs will they have available, who will pay for it, what procedures will there be? I'm trying to look long-term and I'm not seeing any answers or suggestions other than "we free the drug users".
LETTING THEM OUT OF JAIL is a good start, don't cha think?
Yeah, it's a good start. But are you going to finish what you started? How?
I can barely believe that when it comes to letting non-violent drug users out of prison, you won't do it because they might not get a job?!?
You want what you think is best for them, which is releasing them. What I'm looking at is that I don't think that's best for them. I think if you release them, you need to help facilitate them back into society and the economy and you aren't really presenting mechanisms to help them.
You and I both know how we pay for this drug war. Yes, if there are people who aren't in prison any more, we don't have to pay to keep them there. But the money that is saved there, is that money going to come back to us, or is it going to be redirected elsewhere? By legalizing drugs, are we going to be creating more social services because of it? Will it all balance out, or are we going to need extra money for this transition period? How long is this transition period going to last? The important thing is beyond that though. You bring up the medicinal models of treatment. Have you addressed how drug addiction will be treated and handled, how it will be paid for, how it will be integrated into society? Can you just release people with no concrete plan for the future?
Okay, so you want to return their home. What happens to the people living in it now?
The government has to compensate, but it doesn't have to be the exact same home.
What happens if people argue they lost stuff because of their drug addiction, are we going to reimburse them for that?
Huh? Why would that come up?
If you want to change the law, then I think you need to prepare them and society for it before this release.
You mean that people should stay in jail til "society" is prepared to let them out? If we did that NO ONE WOULD EVER GET OUT OF JAIL FOR ANYTHING. Shoplifting? LIFE SENTENCE. Sort of like Singapore. Not a democracy, that's for sure.
You're failing to see the repercussions beyond releasing them. That is what I am trying to address.
OK, kidding aside, I can see that you are sincerely worried. Listen, lifting the drug prohibition is a libertarian idea. We can't possibly hold everyone's hand, though it would be nice. How about a Drug Rehabilitation Agency instead of a Drug Enforcement Agency? Would that make you happier about lifting prohibition? I'm against it. I think the people you are worried about would be just fine. Getting out of jail is a great motivational lift.
I don't think I can get to every point that was raised, but I'll try to answer your first big post of questions.
Yeah, the war on drugs isn't working the greatest.
It's worse than that -- the drug war is actively harmful, and its effects run in direct counter to its supposed goals.
If there is a better solution, I would love to hear it.
There are a lot of different versions of better solutions - a huge range of options. The best short-term step would be to take it out of the hands of the federal government and leave it up to the states. You would quickly see a whole lot of attempts at better solutions, and the inter-state free market would help decide what worked best for who (i.e., you could go to the state that was run in the way you liked best, and each solution would bring measurable success or failure for each state to evaluate on its own terms).
My concern is that this would bring a huge change to our society. I think prisoners would need their cases reviewed. Some may be able to go free, some may not. Prison systems would have to be reworked. You may have a number of people who are out of jobs because of the changes in law (prison officials, drug enforcement personnel, judges, police officers),
Yes, all these changes would have to take place -- but none of those problems is a sound reason for which to keep someone in jail, or keep arresting people. You're basically talking about downsizing the drug war industry -- of course there would be growing pains from doing that. But keeping people in jail so that their jailer won't lose his or her job is pretty messed up thinking.
In terms of solutions on this part, crabby has addressed a lot of it. Enforcement people could go start enforcing violent crime laws -- regional tests of this have shown, not surprisingly, that when LE agents shift resources from enforcing drug laws toward policing violent crime, violent crime goes down. If every police agency in America just did a total shift like that tomorrow, crimes with victims would go down markedly, and quickly.
plus you would have the influx of people released from prison who would be looking for jobs.
I'm sure most of them would rather be looking for jobs than in prison. And too bad for them if not. Prison should not be used as a way to tweak the unemployment rate. If they haven't hurt anyone, they should be free. The side effects of that aren't problems, they are just consequences of (real) justice. Crab's analogy to ending slavery was correct on this point. Keeping people slaves because of concern over the impact freeing them might have on the economy was immoral.
Granted, there may be new jobs created if drugs were legal, but would there be a big difference in the number of jobs lost as to those created by this change in laws?
First, as I said, the economic implications, which includes job creation or loss, should not be a factor in imprisoning someone. It's not sane to keep prisoners just so that guards don't lose work, and it's equally messed up to keep wrongly jailed people in jail for fear of their employability (or lack thereof).
Second, I expect that FAR more jobs would be created in the hemp industry alone than would be lost by legalizing drugs. The usefulness of hemp is almost impossible to overstate, and it would become one of the country's biggest industries within years. Not to mention all the drug-related jobs that would shift from the underground black market to the above-ground legitimate economy -- billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs.
A number of laws would likely have to be taken off the books, and others changed.
Yes, changing the laws would involve changing the laws. Again, there a wide range of options in regard to what the changes should be. I couldn't begin to give a comprehensive breakdown of all the changes. Allowing each state to decide for itself would be a great start.
The role of drugs in society, and where its acceptable for them would have to be addressed. There has been this stigma in this country for many people that drugs are bad. You would have to work on changing that stigma, that it's okay if people have used drugs before.
Well it's not the proper role of government to tell people what lifestyles are and aren't OK, but I agree that society would need to have a lot of purposeful discussion about the role of drugs and drug use. The drug war currently interferes wildly with that process, resulting in people who simply look to the goverment's irrational classifications in deciding about various drugs. That's well-evidenced in the false distinction so many make between alcohol and "drugs" -- and the false perception people have about the relative harm between the "two".
You have to decide if people with previous drug convictions will get those wiped off the books, or if they will stay there.
Wiped off the books would be my choice, but I don't think it matters that much in the grand scheme of things. Not taking away people's liberty through arrest, prosecution, and jail is the part that matters. The bookkeeping details matter very little. Would your support or opposition to a legalization or decriminalization plan hinge on this question?
How employers can handle that.
What do employers do about drug screening tests?
Still, you have to deal with employers who may discriminate based on drug usage. You would have employers who would have to come up with new policies regarding drugs. If someone needs treatment, what happens as far as who pays, how long they get, do they get to retain their job, etc.
In terms of drug use employers can do as they please, within the bounds of their contractual obligations, as far as I'm concerned.
How are we going to treat drug users, those who get addicted?
Drug treatment facilities would be my guess. As a libertarian, I would support privately-funded ones. Most states would probably choose to have a state-sponsored program.
Are we going to have campaigns that let people know the side effects of drugs, the negative aspects, etc?
I am. I don't know about you. There are obviously a lot of people who don't want folks to do drugs, so I find it hard to imagine that those folks wouldn't do all they can to spread the word about the harmful effects of drugs. Luckily for them, they wouldn't have to deal with the problem of the irrational framework set up by the government, where alcohol is "ok" but pot is not, and where pot is lumped together with heroin and coke. There would finally be a framework which allowed for a balanced and rational view of the effects of drugs.
It just seems like there is too much up in the air, there isn't a concrete plan on how to go about this. I think that more discussion is needed. More thinking, more brainstorming. If we were to make a change, I would want it to be well thought out, with a good plan of direction.
People in the anti-Drug War movement have been discussing and brainstorming it for decades. If the public or the lawmakers were willing to have a conversation about how it would or could work, there would be no shortage of experts ready to explain all the options and suggest approaches.
In the short term, there are a number of very simple things that could be done. Let the states decide on their own drug laws, and enforce them themselves. In states and localities, police departments could be directed to deprioritize drug crimes, particularly pot, and concentrate the saved resources on combatting violent crime. Of course, those half-solutions won't fix the problem, but they would reduce the harm caused by the drug war, and they could be done pretty easily. The biggest downside would be newly-jobless DEA, CIA and FBI people, but I think the FBI and CIA could probably find something constructive to do with those folks, and the DEA folks too for that matter. And if the DEA people can't handle the job of catching people who are causing physical harm -- if their skill set is limited to raiding clinics, shutting down head shops, encouraging drug users to be dealers, and the like, then personally I don't want them working for our government in a police capacity. They should learn how to do something productive. Give 'em 6 months severance pay and off they go.
Of course they could profit from kids. You don't think that dealers wouldn't target kids? Or the kids would have ways to get their drugs? If you can sell the product for more than it cost, you are going to make a profit. I just don't see how people who already perform illegal activities won't continue to perform illegal activities in the goal of making money.
Because the profit margin would go way, way down. If a 15-year-old can make 500 dollars a day selling heroin to little kids, a lot of 15-year olds (and people of all ages) find that enticing enough to do what they wouldn't otherwise do. If heroin was legal, nobody would be making the kind of money needed to pay kids $500 a day to deal drugs. Jobs in the heroin market would be about as profitable as jobs in the alcohol industry or cigarette industry are -- which is to say, they would just be regular jobs. Is a 15-year old going to take the risk of selling heroin to kids for 6 bucks an hour? My guess is that most kids would prefer flipping burgers at that rate. Do liquor stores send out emissaries to try and hook the young'uns? What if they did? How long would they stay in business? And if put out of business, would they go underground with their alcohol-pushing scheme? No, they wouldn't, because they wouldn't stand a chance financially against the legitimate alcohol enterprises. They wouldn't do it because the gain would not be greater than the bad deed. It's astronomical price inflation that sends pushers after kids, and it's their underground status that makes them mostly uncatchable, unpunishable, and unaccountable. If you find your kid with a booze bottle or a keg, you can find out where he got it, and you can go there and take action through the police, through boycott, through civil court, through the licensing board. You find your kid with some heroin, and none of those avenues is of much if any use.
crack is something that was created because of the laws
Well if people have to compete with federal drug dealers/stores, whats to say they won't come up with something in response to that?
Crack came about as an answer to the market's demand for a 5-dollar high. When the government's crackdown on coke rendered it too expensive for consumers, some crafty dealer figured out how to concentrate it, so a given amount of coke would make a bunch of far more powerful crack. The cost-per-high of crack was much lower, so it provided people with what they wanted -- a 5-dollar high. When in reality those folks would have been much better off if cocaine had simply stayed affordable. Anyone with real-life experience will tell you that a crackhead is much worse off than a cokehead.
If both coke and crack could be elimintaed from the globe, the relevant people would still seek that cheap high, from wherever they can find it. Thus, the crackdown on crack inspired the market to come up with crystal meth, PCP, and other fun stuff.
If drugs were legal, people would be able to get their 5-dollar high with the minimum amount of damage. All things being equal, few people would choose crack or meth over cocaine. It's widely known that the first two are more addictive and more harmful than the third. People choose as they do now because prohibition has created a market imbalance. To save money and increase their high-per-dollar, they choose drugs which are more harmful. On a related note, if heroin wasn't so expensive, more people would smoke it (less harmful but more wasteful) than shoot it (more harmful but less wasteful). If pot wasn't so expensive, many people would choose to eat it (less harmful but more wasteful) than smoke it (more harmful but less wasteful). People might switch back to taking their cocaine in beverage form (less harmful but more wasteful) rather than snorting it (more harmful but less wasteful).
What about those without families?
What about them? People get released from prison every day -- with families and without them. If I were you I'd worry more about what all the violent criminals who get released early due to overcrowding of the justice system will do when they're released.
Or those whose families won't take them back? These families can all of a sudden adjust to having this person back in their lives like that? How do they provide for themselves?
You say that like there are lost of families out there that wouldn't like to see their member released from prison early. I think that group is very, very small. Statistically insignificant, I bet -- particularly for drug prisoners.
But say we can consolidate criminals, what do we do with vacant prisons?
Sell them.
On the flip side, if we make this into a medical model of treatment instead of criminal, do we pay for those treatment programs? Do those get included in social services that we pay for? I would be worried that the money would just get redirected from drug enforcement into drug treatment.
Why would that worry you? The money would go from helping to compound the problem and endanger innocent people needlessly, to actually combatting drug abuse and reducing use. Meanwhile the money that's currently pissed away into the black market would instead help grow the ecomony and provide tax revenues. I think you'd get by just fine -- you would have a lot less to worry about.
I would love to have vacant prisons if it meant that we all got along and nobody commited crimes. But I have a feeling that people will wonder what we're going to do with these prisons that we put money into.
You don't think they'd react like you -- loving the vacant prisons?
Anyway, worrying about the buyers' remorse of taxpayers is not sufficient reason to keep people locked up when they haven't hurt anybody.
Will there still be markets to fight over though?
No, there will be markets to compete over. People only fight over markets in the criminal underground.
If you have a rivalry like a McDonalds/Burger King, then might it get violent?
I know crabby said this, but it's worth repeating: We do have a rivalry like McDonalds/Burger King -- it's McDonalds/Burger King. And Coke/Pepsi. And Fox/ABC/NBC. And Absolut vs. Captain Morgan's. And Nike vs. Adidas. And Camel vs. Marlboro.
None of those, as far as I know, has gotten violent.
It's part of the culture that they're used to.
Well, how do we stop that? By continuing to facilitate that culture, or by rendering violence obsolete as a market tool?
It's about profit to them, making money.
Yeah, it's about that to every company, including all the rivals listed above. Making money and violence only go hand in hand in the black market. When was the only time in our country's history when the alcohol industry (as opposed to individual usage) was associated with violence? (hint: it starts with "P")
When I raise all these questions, I'm not saying I agree with them. I'm trying to play devil's advocate at times, I'm raising my concerns at times, I'm raising other concerns that I think other people will have. To make drug legalization a reality, you have to really affect more of society and especially politicians. I've been debating this for a number of posts and I don't feel we've gotten anywhere other than showcasing Jethro's superior arguing skills ;)
NO NO NO crabby. Dopers/gang bangers/dealers...etc. all go hand and hand. So what your saying is that you would welcome a non-violent drug dealer who laced his cocaine to kill people into your house with open arms? Are you nuts?
TMK is right. You offer no ideas on what to do with people when they are released from prison except to employ them in a non-existent hemp factory. How more laughable than that can you get?
It's true that we have dug ourselves a pretty deep hole with it, but seriously, if drugs were legal tomorrow what's the worst thing that could happen?
You sound like you want to build a house with only $5, a few boxes and some duct tape. You would have to deal with all those individuals in prison who would be let go. All those who would appeal their sentences. Where would these people go, what would they do? What do you do with the prisons that now don't have as many inmates? Do people lose their jobs? What do drug enforcement agencies at various levels do? What do employers do about drug screening tests? What do you we do as far as treatment? This isn't like a switch where you can turn it on or off.
One of the difficulties in changing people's perception is that the propaganda against it has been very good at connecting the problems that only exist because of the laws themselves with the using of the drug. You don't become a gangbanger simply because you do drugs, you become a gangbanger because (since drugs are illegal) you can make a lot of money from them.
if you make any substance that people want illegal, it creates a black market which breed crime and violence.
if you outlawed red meat tomorrow, by next month I'll bet we could read about people killing each other trying to sell it.
We should have learned all this back during prohibition.
One of the difficulties in changing people's perception is that the propaganda against it has been very good at connecting the problems that only exist because of the laws themselves with the using of the drug. You don't become a gangbanger simply because you do drugs, you become a gangbanger because (since drugs are illegal) you can make a lot of money from them.
That's why you have to do more, rather than just saying "let's make it legal tomorrow!". Granted, with someone like Jethro you may have problems. But if you can get more evidence and more support for it, if you have a good idea and a good plan, you should be able to overcome the propaganda.
We should have learned all this back during prohibition
You keep referring to Prohibition. I can't remember, but I believe Prohibition lasted only a short time. They had their society, they went to prohibition, then they went back to things before. There was probably some change. We've had drugs be illegal for a long time. That's a lot to deal with and change. You can't just do that overnight.
what are you saying?
that we are keeping them in jail for their own good?!
a lot of them would go back to their families.
Put violent criminals in them. I mean, people will still commit violent crimes. It's just that we won't have to worry about prison overcrowding or consider privatizing our penal system anymore.
Every day...people get busted for pot and get fired for it all the time, yes..oh...you mean all the prison guards and wardens and police and DEA and judges and lawyers and....etc...yes, they lose their jobs. And that's okay with me since it's you and me paying their salery in the first place.
oh...here's an idea...PROTECT US FROM THE TERRORISTS WHO USE THE FACT THAT WE HAVE AN UNDERGROUND SUPPLY OF CASH FOR THEM BECAUSE OF OUR PROHIBITION, that's what they can do...get jobs that actually protect people from someone other than themselves.
Stop wasting money on them.
Treatment for what? Addiction?
People get addicted now, what are we doing as far as treatment now?
well, then we had better get started
the first step is to get the politicians to stop treating it like it's political suicide to talk rationally about it. That's starting to happen some, but I agree, it's not as easy as just "'poof' you have repealed the law"
Like what [that they didn't have to do after prohibition] specifically?
that's why I'm talking to you about it
you also talk about people losing jobs, but with legalizing hemp alone you would create an entire industry. Now of course this industry would have to compete in the marketplace against the very people who helped give birth to the laws in the first place (unless they can find some way to make the substances their competitor uses illegal), and everyone knows that competition in a free marketplace is good for the economy.
a lot of them would go back to their families.
What about those without families? Or those whose families won't take them back? These families can all of a sudden adjust to having this person back in their lives like that? How do they provide for themselves?
Put violent criminals in them. I mean, people will still commit violent crimes. It's just that we won't have to worry about prison overcrowding or consider privatizing our penal system anymore.
I know we will still have a need for prisons. But say we can consolidate criminals, what do we do with vacant prisons?
Every day...people get busted for pot and get fired for it all the time, yes..oh...you mean all the prison guards and wardens and police and DEA and judges and lawyers and....etc...yes, they lose their jobs. And that's okay with me since it's you and me paying their salery in the first place.
On the flip side, if we make this into a medical model of treatment instead of criminal, do we pay for those treatment programs? Do those get included in social services that we pay for? I would be worried that the money would just get redirected from drug enforcement into drug treatment.
Stop wasting money on them.
Still, you have to deal with employers who may discriminate based on drug usage. You would have employers who would have to come up with new policies regarding drugs. If someone needs treatment, what happens as far as who pays, how long they get, do they get to retain their job, etc.
Treatment for what? Addiction? People get addicted now, what are we doing as far as treatment now?
Yes, people do get addicted now. I'm not denying that. But if drug usage increases because it becomes legalized, there's a chance for increase in addiction. Do we have the facilities to treat that increase in addicted inviduals? Are we going to do anything about informing people more about the possible side effects of drugs?
the first step is to get the politicians to stop treating it like it's political suicide to talk rationally about it. That's starting to happen some, but I agree, it's not as easy as just "'poof' you have repealed the law"
There's a lot of work that would go into changing not only the laws, but making society ready for having drugs legalized. Yes, it's a step in the direction you want. I would want it too if it offers an overall better solution than what we have. There are just too many unanswered questions though.
Like what [that they didn't have to do after prohibition] specifically?
It's moreso the volume of what needs to be done. Things that need to be changed are on a greater scale.
that's why I'm talking to you about it
Yes, you're talking to me about it, and you've opened my mind slightly. But still, I'm not really for it because I feel there are just as many if not more problems that are presented by making drugs legalized, and I haven't heard a plan that comes close to really addressing all or most of the concerns.
you also talk about people losing jobs, but with legalizing hemp alone you would create an entire industry
Yes, I realize that it would creat jobs. Of course it would. People would have to make these drugs, would have to sell them. I don't know that the people who would be losing their jobs would be able to step into these jobs. Some yes, but not as much.
you act like there aren't any drugs now.
and the industry that I was talking about was hemp.
vacant prisons?
perish the thought!
I guess they would stop costing us money to run.
I guess you could turn them into colleges for the poor or something
I know, turn them into hemp factories!
you act like there aren't any drugs now. and the industry that I was talking about was hemp.
I know there are drugs now. But if the federal government, or other companies want to make drugs that are now illegal, they would need people. As far as hemp, yes, you would need people to grow it, harvest, process, sell it all.
vacant prisons? perish the thought!
I would love to have vacant prisons if it meant that we all got along and nobody commited crimes. But I have a feeling that people will wonder what we're going to do with these prisons that we put money into. I'm just looking at a bigger picture and trying to think of all the things that could come up with a change like this. I think you need to do that.
OK. Let's empty the prisons crabs. I'm sure you won't mind a few doper/gang bangers moving in with your family. You seem to be very fond of them. You know. Help out the oppressed of society.
We can call it the 2003 crabgrass boat lift.
lower unemployment? and this is bad how?
of non-violent drug offenders, absolutely.
I believe that a "gangbanger" is a violent offender. We need the prison space for violent offenders. Of course the number of "gangbangers" will decline rapidly, since there is no longer an underground market to fight over.
non-violent drug users?
yea...some of my favorite people are non-violent drug users.
Of course, most people are...non-violent drug users that is...so my odds were pretty good.
besides, who the hell are you to put people in jail just because you aren't "very fond" of them?
lower unemployment? and this is bad how?
Lower unemployment isn't bad if it's meaningful jobs. What about those who lose their jobs because the drug laws get changed? Will unemployment really go down, or will it stay the same?
of non-violent drug offenders, absolutely.
I think something of interest will be those offenders who had drug offenses and other offenses. Are they going to be re-tried? Sentences reduced? What about those who committed violent crimes in order to get drugs? Will they be released? The way some lawyers seem, I could see this getting crazy.
I believe that a "gangbanger" is a violent offender. We need the prison space for violent offenders. Of course the number of "gangbangers" will decline rapidly, since there is no longer an underground market to fight over.
Will there still be markets to fight over though? I don't know how drug dealing will be implemented. Can you get the drugs from a federal store? Will others be able to sell? Will you have chains? If you have a rivalry like a McDonalds/Burger King, then might it get violent? It's part of the culture that they're used to. It's about profit to them, making money.
are these really reasons to keep people in prison?
are these really reasons to keep people in prison?
Alone, no. There's a lot more to it. Besides, because it's good for the economy, does that mean we should let the drug users out?
if someone commits a violent act, they don't just charge them with drug possession. And just because drugs are legal doesn't mean that crimes commited on drugs are somehow excused, no.
if it's over something illegal, absolutely...that's the problem.
now, McDonalds and Burger King are indeed rivals, but since what they sell isn't criminal, they don't have shootouts in the street over it (Hamburgler excepted).
and besides getting violent is still against the law.
what I'm saying is that violent crime will go down if you stop creating a black market.
no, we should let them out because they haven't done anything to anyone.
what other reasons do you have to continue to imprison people for breaking no laws except non-violent drug possession?
No doubt!
In the case of marijuana, a good deal of the problems attributed to its use are problems mainly because its illegal.
what other reasons do you have to continue to imprison people for breaking no laws except non-violent drug possession?
That's the law as it's written now. They have broken the law, so according to law, they go to prison. The reason I continue to do this as you seem to think is because I haven't seen a solution presented that thoroughly addresses many of the problems I see that may potentially arise by changing the laws.
so, when they freed the slaves, they should have kept the people who broke the law (as it was written) by helping free slave in jail to finish their sentences?
bad law is bad law.
so, when they freed the slaves, they should have kept the people who broke the law (as it was written) by helping free slave in jail to finish their sentences?
If a law that was broken is repealed, then they should be released.
bad law is bad law.
This "bad law" is the step that society has taken to deal with drug problems. Again, you haven't offered any solution other than changing the law. If that's your proposal, you need a lot more to it to change peoples minds.
you haven't presented any problems that we either current don't have already (only worse) because it's illegal, unless you think lower prison population and better police protection from actual crimes is a problem.
THe British figured out that all the time and effort the bobbies spent trying to stop pot smokers was a waste of time and resources since the pot smokers didn't present a crime problem outside of simply taking a drug.
Help me out. What problems will arise by changing the laws? Do we still have the same problems, associated with boolegging, that we had during prohibition?
you haven't presented any problems that we either current don't have already (only worse) because it's illegal, unless you think lower prison population and better police protection from actual crimes is a problem
I've been raising questions to be answered and potential problems for about 50 posts now. I guess you've been ignoring them, or you only seem to focus on the facts that matter to you. I'm trying to take a holistic approach to this. Think of all the potential problems. If I'm giving you problems that we already have, are you saying that it's okay to solve a problem by just adding on to other problems? Doesn't really sound like a solution to me.
THe British figured out that all the time and effort the bobbies spent trying to stop pot smokers was a waste of time and resources since the pot smokers didn't present a crime problem outside of simply taking a drug.
I've said before, I'm not including pot in my arguments. I think they are a separate issue that need to be decided upon on its own.
it's a bad law.
it doesn't work.
it causes more damage than it could possibly hope to prevent.
that's because changing the law is the solution to a bad law.
What part of the sky exactly do you think is going to fall if we change the law?
I mean, your arguments are the same as an old southerner saying "no way can we let these blacks be equal...society would have to make just too many changes. It's been this way for a long time now, you can't just go changing things on us"
if you have a bad law, you can't fix it by forcing the bad conditions it creates into prisons. You have to fix the law itself.
Help me out. What problems will arise by changing the laws?
I'm not going to repeat myself. You can read my posts in the last 100 or so posts on this thread. I've raised a number of concerns. Just go back and read them.
well, unfortunately, if you are arguing to not change the drug laws, the government says you are including pot.
sorry.
you can't just exclude it.
people are in prison for it and nothing else.
that's because changing the law is the solution to a bad law.
We could change it so that drug users earn a million bucks for using drugs. Or that they all get more social security than the rest of us. Or they can get free housing in Vermont. Are those good solutions? No, they're not, but they're changes. Just because you change a "bad law", doesn't mean the solution is going to be good.
I mean, your arguments are the same as an old southerner saying "no way can we let these blacks be equal...society would have to make just too many changes. It's been this way for a long time now, you can't just go changing things on us"
Jethro would say something like that. He's the stubborn mule. I thought you and I have been having a rational discussion. And I thought along the way I made it clear that if a good solution is presented, then I would be for it. The thing is, to me, it will involve a lot of change. I'm not against it if it means making a better society. If it makes us better, I would want it to succeed. You're just not giving me any plan to get behind, to cheer and support on. If you do, then yeah, I'd start arguing for it. Basically you're just giving one mantra. In a way I guess you're like a politician who just has one slogan or platform you're running on. "I'll be tough on crime!", "I'm the king of education!", "Lower taxes for all!".
if you have a bad law, you can't fix it by forcing the bad conditions it creates into prisons. You have to fix the law itself.
You have to convince a lot of people to fix that law. And you're not going to convince them unless you have a lot more to propose, a lot more planned out.
well, unfortunately, if you are arguing to not change the drug laws, the government says you are including pot.
To me, you're arguing to make all drugs legal. That I'm not for. I would really consider legalizing pot though. That's because of a few things. From what I know, it does have medicinal qualities. I do not believe it's very addictive. There also have been some states that have voted for it to be legalized, but the federal government repealed those laws I think. That I think is the fed government interfering with states rights. Pot I very well possibly could handle being legalized. The other stuff, no.
Found some of the issues you brought up
ThoseMedallingKids - (PFID:13d2e4) - 10:32pm Apr 11, 2003 PST (# 844 of 844)
Deal with them how? They will be freed and then they go home. To live with family or friends til they get a job or start a business. Surely some of the money we will save from not incarcerating them could generate some jobs!
Appeal it WHY? If the laws are repealed they will be set free and they won't have any sentence to appeal.
They would go back to living their lives as they were before a bad law rudely interrupted them.
Are you aware that prisons are overcrowded?
But if we had to close some prisons, how would that be a bad thing?
Probably not. But who are we talking about?
Many people are of the opinion that we have the current prohibition because the government wanted to find something for all the anti-bootlegging feds to do. Frankly, I think that we would be better off dismantling the DEA and the whole rest of the federal anti-drug machine. Here's a thought: they could investigate terrorists. Though a know the very idea would chill quite a few civil libertarians.
Discontinue them. That's some money saved for the bottom line. Probably would have a positive effect on the stock market.
Same as now, but hopefully, more money could be diverted for it.
You do have a valid point, but I don't agree that all these side effects would be an insurmountable social or economic burden.
Deal with them how? They will be freed and then they go home. To live with family or friends til they get a job or start a business. Surely some of the money we will save from not incarcerating them could generate some jobs!
What if they don't have a home? How easy will it be for them to get a job? Can businesses now disciminate against people who use drugs? Some of the money could generate jobs. The people who lose their jobs because of the changes in the drug laws would need jobs too. And would we be saving money, or just shifting it to treating those with drug addictions, or other needs that will arise with the change in laws?
Appeal it WHY? If the laws are repealed they will be set free and they won't have any sentence to appeal.
Appeal it because they had drug charges along with some other offense. Or some circumstance which they feel deem appeals. You know that if you change the laws there will be prisoners who will want to appeal if they can.
They would go back to living their lives as they were before a bad law rudely interrupted them.
Can they do that though? Can they go back to the same job? Will they have the same opportunities? What if they've been in jail for a long time?
Are you aware that prisons are overcrowded? But if we had to close some prisons, how would that be a bad thing?
Yes, I'm aware that prisons are overcrowded. One bad thing about it would that there would be some loss in jobs. I'm not really as concerned about it, but I know there will be people who will want to know what will happen to the empty prison facilities that are sitting there not being used, which they as citizens helped pay for.
Probably not. But who are we talking about?
I think I was asking either if people involved with drug enforcement lose their jobs, or if people who used drugs could lose their jobs.
Discontinue them. That's some money saved for the bottom line. Probably would have a positive effect on the stock market.
I don't know if drug screening tests would have an effect on the stock market or not. What happens though if companies still want to screen for drugs? If you're an employer, I don't think you'd want an employee missing time off of work because of a drug addiction.
Same as now, but hopefully, more money could be diverted for it.
Again, as I brought up previously, are we going to have the capacity to treat all those with drug addictions? Those that we release, have they been treated, or are they going to need treatment? Do we have enough facilities to treat a likely increase in drug addicts? Also, you were talking about saving money before, but now you're talking about diverting money. I don't doubt that you can save money on prisons and incarceration, but is the money going to be returned to people, or is it just going to be diverted somewhere else, still costing us the same amount?
You do have a valid point, but I don't agree that all these side effects would be an insurmountable social or economic burden.
At this point, I think it would be a burden. I don't know that it's insurmountable either. If you want to change this, I want a good, well-thought plan put together that we can implement and follow. I want a lot of issues addressed beforehand so it can be as successful as it can be. I'm just not getting that at this point.
you understand that this can be read as advocating putting the homeless in prisons as a solution for homelessness, don't you?
you understand that this can be read as advocating putting the homeless in prisons as a solution for homelessness, don't you?
What? Huh? How the heck do you come up with that? What I'm advocating is that you need to think of those prisoners who may be released to no home to go to and having no money. Are you just going to release them to the streets? I doubt you would want to do that. I wouldn't want to either. But what do you propose doing about it? That's what I'm trying to say.
I'm sorry, but what the hell are you talking about?
Just what do you think happens when a non-violent drug prisoner gets parole or finishes serving his sentence?
We don't say to them, "look, I think your old job is no longer available and, well, you've been in here for quite some time now and the job market isn't like you remember it. Tell you what, for your own good, we better just keep you in here. Sorry."
We don't tell them that, do we?
I need to let them out of jail is what I need to do. Now, if the reason they have no home is because the Feds confiscated it because of drugs, then yes, the Feds will have to return their home to them.
you doubt wrong.
if they haven't done anything, yes, release them into the street.
why would I want to keep someone in prison just becasue they are poor?
It sounds like you are recommending a debtor's prison.
why am I in jail?
because you are homeless.
why am I homeless?
because you are in jail.
do people ever get out of jail in your world?
We don't say to them, "look, I think your old job is no longer available and, well, you've been in here for quite some time now and the job market isn't like you remember it. Tell you what, for your own good, we better just keep you in here. Sorry."
I know we don't do that. I'm not as stupid as you may think. How are they going to support themselves while they are looking for a job? How will the fact that they've been in prison for X amount of time affect their chance to find a job? I have a feeling you're going to have to legislate what employers can and can't do as far as using drug convictions or testing in order to hire a person. The job market sucks now, and it probably would suck even more if you add more possible applicants to it. Add on the fact that they've been incarcerated for a while, and their chances for finding a job isn't large. I'm not saying we keep them in there for it, I'm saying what are you going to do to help them get back into society and get them a job and support themselves?
ThoseMedallingKids - 11:14pm Apr 11, 2003 PST (#846 of 846)
Few people are locked up for their whole lives. If you have a concern about this, then how is adding to the problem (locking more people up) helping out on the other end? This is not a problem that will "come up" when we lift prohibition. It's going on now. These problems are being addressed right now. Are they being addressed well? Probably not. But you won't help the problem by creating more of it by locking
up more people.
Oh, I get it. Yeah, that could generate some appeals. But it's not likely to jam the system: Consider that hundreds of thousands of cases will never enter the system because: No more drug cases.
As I said above, these are not problems that do not exist today.
Same with alcohol addiction, no?
We aren't likely to see an increase in drug addiction. Didn't see more alcoholism as a result of repealing prohibition, either.
Depends on what the feds do. That's why we have elections.
Was the enormous cost of the war on drugs addressed beforehand? As I said above, it's really a red herring to talk about the social impacts, because you don't raise any impacts that will be increased over what we have now. In fact, the impacts are likely to decrease, because we aren't putting more people into the prison system and having to deal with their rehabilitation when they get out.
LETTING THEM OUT OF JAILis a good start, don't cha think?
I mean, it's pretty hard to get back into society if you are in prison.
You sound like you keeping non-violent drug offenders in jail is a good thing because it takes them out of the job market.
I can barely believe that when it comes to letting non-violent drug users out of prison, you won't do it because they might not get a job?!?
I need to let them out of jail is what I need to do. Now, if the reason they have no home is because the Feds confiscated it because of drugs, then yes, the Feds will have to return their home to them.
Okay, so you want to return their home. What happens to the people living in it now? How do we pay for all of this? What happens if people argue they lost stuff because of their drug addiction, are we going to reimburse them for that? These are questions that I feel are going to be asked and are going to need answers to.
if they haven't done anything, yes, release them into the street.
They have done something, they have broken the law as we have written today. If you want to change the law, then I think you need to prepare them and society for it before this release.
why would I want to keep someone in prison just becasue they are poor?
I'm not keeping them in prison because they are poor. You're failing to see the repercussions beyond releasing them. That is what I am trying to address. You seem to be against the criminal way of dealing with drug addicts, but you don't seem to be talking much about treating them. I'm asking the questions that get at how they will be treated after they are released.
HOW DO WE PAY FOR ALL THIS DRUG WAR?
These problems are being addressed right now. Are they being addressed well? Probably not. But you won't help the problem by creating more of it by locking up more people.
The laws are a way of addressing the drug problem. You think they are not being addressed well. I would want to see these problems addressed before a large number of prisoners are released, and I'm sure others would too.
Oh, I get it. Yeah, that could generate some appeals. But it's not likely to jam the system: Consider that hundreds of thousands of cases will never enter the system because: No more drug cases.
Yes, I realize that we would get less cases. But how are you going to handle those that do appeal? You plan on releasing that many people, there is going to be a big influx of appeals cases. Are you going to need to set up a special temporary court system to deal with these cases, or are these prisoners going to have to wait their turn? How will this influx of cases affect the prosecution of other cases which could include violent crimes?
As I said above, these are not problems that do not exist today.
So either you're just adding on to other problems, or you're fixing one problem with another problem? Or just replacing it?
Same with alcohol addiction, no?
If you make drugs legal, there will still be the stigma. There will still be companies that will not want drug users in their company. How will you handle those companies? Will you allow them to have those practices?
We aren't likely to see an increase in drug addiction. Didn't see more alcoholism as a result of repealing prohibition, either
Don't some drugs have a pretty addictive quality to them? Also, if you're going to make drugs legal and have it be profitable, you'll want people to come back over and over again right? Can you do that without people becoming addicted? That seems a bit risky.
Depends on what the feds do. That's why we have elections
And based on the arguments you've raised, I highly doubt drugs will get legalized soon. You guys could have something, but you just haven't fleshed it out enough. You haven't made it appealing to more people. To get this thing into law, you're going to have to win over a lot of people, and you're going to have to answer a lot of questions. You're not really even doing that with me.
Was the enormous cost of the war on drugs addressed beforehand?
Honestly, I don't know. I want to say no, and from the way you talk I'd say that's right. That's why I'm bringing up all of this. Is making this switch going to just cost us an enormous amount when it's all said and done?
In fact, the impacts are likely to decrease, because we aren't putting more people into the prison system and having to deal with their rehabilitation when they get out.
You want to release a heck of a lot of people and have them rehabilitated. Do we have the capacity to accomodate that number? That's what I am asking. Beyond that, what procedures will there be for drug users? What programs will they have available, who will pay for it, what procedures will there be? I'm trying to look long-term and I'm not seeing any answers or suggestions other than "we free the drug users".
LETTING THEM OUT OF JAIL is a good start, don't cha think?
Yeah, it's a good start. But are you going to finish what you started? How?
I can barely believe that when it comes to letting non-violent drug users out of prison, you won't do it because they might not get a job?!?
You want what you think is best for them, which is releasing them. What I'm looking at is that I don't think that's best for them. I think if you release them, you need to help facilitate them back into society and the economy and you aren't really presenting mechanisms to help them.
HOW DO WE PAY FOR ALL THIS DRUG WAR?
You and I both know how we pay for this drug war. Yes, if there are people who aren't in prison any more, we don't have to pay to keep them there. But the money that is saved there, is that money going to come back to us, or is it going to be redirected elsewhere? By legalizing drugs, are we going to be creating more social services because of it? Will it all balance out, or are we going to need extra money for this transition period? How long is this transition period going to last? The important thing is beyond that though. You bring up the medicinal models of treatment. Have you addressed how drug addiction will be treated and handled, how it will be paid for, how it will be integrated into society? Can you just release people with no concrete plan for the future?
The government has to compensate, but it doesn't have to be the exact same home.
Huh? Why would that come up?
You mean that people should stay in jail til "society" is prepared to let them out? If we did that NO ONE WOULD EVER GET OUT OF JAIL FOR ANYTHING. Shoplifting? LIFE SENTENCE. Sort of like Singapore. Not a democracy, that's for sure.
OK, kidding aside, I can see that you are sincerely worried. Listen, lifting the drug prohibition is a libertarian idea. We can't possibly hold everyone's hand, though it would be nice. How about a Drug Rehabilitation Agency instead of a Drug Enforcement Agency? Would that make you happier about lifting prohibition? I'm against it. I think the people you are worried about would be just fine. Getting out of jail is a great motivational lift.
I don't think I can get to every point that was raised, but I'll try to answer your first big post of questions.
It's worse than that -- the drug war is actively harmful, and its effects run in direct counter to its supposed goals.
There are a lot of different versions of better solutions - a huge range of options. The best short-term step would be to take it out of the hands of the federal government and leave it up to the states. You would quickly see a whole lot of attempts at better solutions, and the inter-state free market would help decide what worked best for who (i.e., you could go to the state that was run in the way you liked best, and each solution would bring measurable success or failure for each state to evaluate on its own terms).
Yes, all these changes would have to take place -- but none of those problems is a sound reason for which to keep someone in jail, or keep arresting people. You're basically talking about downsizing the drug war industry -- of course there would be growing pains from doing that. But keeping people in jail so that their jailer won't lose his or her job is pretty messed up thinking.
In terms of solutions on this part, crabby has addressed a lot of it. Enforcement people could go start enforcing violent crime laws -- regional tests of this have shown, not surprisingly, that when LE agents shift resources from enforcing drug laws toward policing violent crime, violent crime goes down. If every police agency in America just did a total shift like that tomorrow, crimes with victims would go down markedly, and quickly.
I'm sure most of them would rather be looking for jobs than in prison. And too bad for them if not. Prison should not be used as a way to tweak the unemployment rate. If they haven't hurt anyone, they should be free. The side effects of that aren't problems, they are just consequences of (real) justice. Crab's analogy to ending slavery was correct on this point. Keeping people slaves because of concern over the impact freeing them might have on the economy was immoral.
First, as I said, the economic implications, which includes job creation or loss, should not be a factor in imprisoning someone. It's not sane to keep prisoners just so that guards don't lose work, and it's equally messed up to keep wrongly jailed people in jail for fear of their employability (or lack thereof).
Second, I expect that FAR more jobs would be created in the hemp industry alone than would be lost by legalizing drugs. The usefulness of hemp is almost impossible to overstate, and it would become one of the country's biggest industries within years. Not to mention all the drug-related jobs that would shift from the underground black market to the above-ground legitimate economy -- billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Yes, changing the laws would involve changing the laws. Again, there a wide range of options in regard to what the changes should be. I couldn't begin to give a comprehensive breakdown of all the changes. Allowing each state to decide for itself would be a great start.
Well it's not the proper role of government to tell people what lifestyles are and aren't OK, but I agree that society would need to have a lot of purposeful discussion about the role of drugs and drug use. The drug war currently interferes wildly with that process, resulting in people who simply look to the goverment's irrational classifications in deciding about various drugs. That's well-evidenced in the false distinction so many make between alcohol and "drugs" -- and the false perception people have about the relative harm between the "two".
Wiped off the books would be my choice, but I don't think it matters that much in the grand scheme of things. Not taking away people's liberty through arrest, prosecution, and jail is the part that matters. The bookkeeping details matter very little. Would your support or opposition to a legalization or decriminalization plan hinge on this question?
In terms of drug use employers can do as they please, within the bounds of their contractual obligations, as far as I'm concerned.
Drug treatment facilities would be my guess. As a libertarian, I would support privately-funded ones. Most states would probably choose to have a state-sponsored program.
I am. I don't know about you. There are obviously a lot of people who don't want folks to do drugs, so I find it hard to imagine that those folks wouldn't do all they can to spread the word about the harmful effects of drugs. Luckily for them, they wouldn't have to deal with the problem of the irrational framework set up by the government, where alcohol is "ok" but pot is not, and where pot is lumped together with heroin and coke. There would finally be a framework which allowed for a balanced and rational view of the effects of drugs.
People in the anti-Drug War movement have been discussing and brainstorming it for decades. If the public or the lawmakers were willing to have a conversation about how it would or could work, there would be no shortage of experts ready to explain all the options and suggest approaches.
In the short term, there are a number of very simple things that could be done. Let the states decide on their own drug laws, and enforce them themselves. In states and localities, police departments could be directed to deprioritize drug crimes, particularly pot, and concentrate the saved resources on combatting violent crime. Of course, those half-solutions won't fix the problem, but they would reduce the harm caused by the drug war, and they could be done pretty easily. The biggest downside would be newly-jobless DEA, CIA and FBI people, but I think the FBI and CIA could probably find something constructive to do with those folks, and the DEA folks too for that matter. And if the DEA people can't handle the job of catching people who are causing physical harm -- if their skill set is limited to raiding clinics, shutting down head shops, encouraging drug users to be dealers, and the like, then personally I don't want them working for our government in a police capacity. They should learn how to do something productive. Give 'em 6 months severance pay and off they go.
Because the profit margin would go way, way down. If a 15-year-old can make 500 dollars a day selling heroin to little kids, a lot of 15-year olds (and people of all ages) find that enticing enough to do what they wouldn't otherwise do. If heroin was legal, nobody would be making the kind of money needed to pay kids $500 a day to deal drugs. Jobs in the heroin market would be about as profitable as jobs in the alcohol industry or cigarette industry are -- which is to say, they would just be regular jobs. Is a 15-year old going to take the risk of selling heroin to kids for 6 bucks an hour? My guess is that most kids would prefer flipping burgers at that rate. Do liquor stores send out emissaries to try and hook the young'uns? What if they did? How long would they stay in business? And if put out of business, would they go underground with their alcohol-pushing scheme? No, they wouldn't, because they wouldn't stand a chance financially against the legitimate alcohol enterprises. They wouldn't do it because the gain would not be greater than the bad deed. It's astronomical price inflation that sends pushers after kids, and it's their underground status that makes them mostly uncatchable, unpunishable, and unaccountable. If you find your kid with a booze bottle or a keg, you can find out where he got it, and you can go there and take action through the police, through boycott, through civil court, through the licensing board. You find your kid with some heroin, and none of those avenues is of much if any use.
Crack came about as an answer to the market's demand for a 5-dollar high. When the government's crackdown on coke rendered it too expensive for consumers, some crafty dealer figured out how to concentrate it, so a given amount of coke would make a bunch of far more powerful crack. The cost-per-high of crack was much lower, so it provided people with what they wanted -- a 5-dollar high. When in reality those folks would have been much better off if cocaine had simply stayed affordable. Anyone with real-life experience will tell you that a crackhead is much worse off than a cokehead.
If both coke and crack could be elimintaed from the globe, the relevant people would still seek that cheap high, from wherever they can find it. Thus, the crackdown on crack inspired the market to come up with crystal meth, PCP, and other fun stuff.
If drugs were legal, people would be able to get their 5-dollar high with the minimum amount of damage. All things being equal, few people would choose crack or meth over cocaine. It's widely known that the first two are more addictive and more harmful than the third. People choose as they do now because prohibition has created a market imbalance. To save money and increase their high-per-dollar, they choose drugs which are more harmful. On a related note, if heroin wasn't so expensive, more people would smoke it (less harmful but more wasteful) than shoot it (more harmful but less wasteful). If pot wasn't so expensive, many people would choose to eat it (less harmful but more wasteful) than smoke it (more harmful but less wasteful). People might switch back to taking their cocaine in beverage form (less harmful but more wasteful) rather than snorting it (more harmful but less wasteful).
What about them? People get released from prison every day -- with families and without them. If I were you I'd worry more about what all the violent criminals who get released early due to overcrowding of the justice system will do when they're released.
You say that like there are lost of families out there that wouldn't like to see their member released from prison early. I think that group is very, very small. Statistically insignificant, I bet -- particularly for drug prisoners.
Sell them.
Why would that worry you? The money would go from helping to compound the problem and endanger innocent people needlessly, to actually combatting drug abuse and reducing use. Meanwhile the money that's currently pissed away into the black market would instead help grow the ecomony and provide tax revenues. I think you'd get by just fine -- you would have a lot less to worry about.
You don't think they'd react like you -- loving the vacant prisons?
Anyway, worrying about the buyers' remorse of taxpayers is not sufficient reason to keep people locked up when they haven't hurt anybody.
No, there will be markets to compete over. People only fight over markets in the criminal underground.
I know crabby said this, but it's worth repeating: We do have a rivalry like McDonalds/Burger King -- it's McDonalds/Burger King. And Coke/Pepsi. And Fox/ABC/NBC. And Absolut vs. Captain Morgan's. And Nike vs. Adidas. And Camel vs. Marlboro.
None of those, as far as I know, has gotten violent.
Well, how do we stop that? By continuing to facilitate that culture, or by rendering violence obsolete as a market tool?
Yeah, it's about that to every company, including all the rivals listed above. Making money and violence only go hand in hand in the black market. When was the only time in our country's history when the alcohol industry (as opposed to individual usage) was associated with violence? (hint: it starts with "P")
When I raise all these questions, I'm not saying I agree with them. I'm trying to play devil's advocate at times, I'm raising my concerns at times, I'm raising other concerns that I think other people will have. To make drug legalization a reality, you have to really affect more of society and especially politicians. I've been debating this for a number of posts and I don't feel we've gotten anywhere other than showcasing Jethro's superior arguing skills ;)
Good luck with your quest guys.
have we currently?
can you just hold people in prison becasue they have no concrete plans for the future?
what the hell are you talking about?
Do you think that we just don't ever release people from prison?
NO NO NO crabby. Dopers/gang bangers/dealers...etc. all go hand and hand. So what your saying is that you would welcome a non-violent drug dealer who laced his cocaine to kill people into your house with open arms? Are you nuts?
TMK is right. You offer no ideas on what to do with people when they are released from prison except to employ them in a non-existent hemp factory. How more laughable than that can you get?