Land of the free

[BooRadley]

Pho seems very hung up on this 50% number to the point that he's wringing his hands over it w/o addressing the topic.

He very rarely addresses any topics. Anyway . . .

I've done a 180 on the drug laws in the past 5 years. I used to think they were a good idea, all drugs should be illegal. Now I certainly think it's reasonable to legalize pot - probably not legalize the meth heads since they have a tendency to blow things up and go wacko. We have a ton of people filling up prisons who've never committed a violent crime and who've never burglarized anything. It sure would cut down on a some of the drug wars of gangs as well. The dumbest thing California ever did was pass that 3 strikes law... again it was knee jerk reactions by legislators w/o them fully understanding the consequences. Interesting numbers on the full break down of what people are in jail for.

The 3 strikes laws are the opposite of "legislating from the bench". It's "Adjudicating from the Legislature". They're insanely stupid.

As far as legalizing meth, doing that would stop meth heads from blowing things up, because they wouldn't need to cook their own dope. I think hard narcotics should be very, very strictly regulated, but not so much that it's a better buy to get it on the black market. An enormous amount of the violent crime in the country is directly caused by the drug wars.

Funny thing, Bayer Inc. invented and trademarked "Bayer Heroine". . One of the strengths they advertised is that it's not addictive.

By the time they figured it out, they pulled it from the shelves, and Congress banned it, but it was too late. There's been a Heroine (TM) trade every since.

[Lulu]

I lived in CA when they rolled that stupid thing out. Once small-time, casual users were being locked away for life, all of a sudden people realized what they'd done. I'm surprised that law still stands considering all the gang bangers, illegals and absolute bankruptcy that state is facing.

[Pho King]

Again, if this hypothetical meth head weren't in front of a judge for his drug offence, then his past history would be irrelevant, because he wouldn't be in front of a judge to worry about it. His priors are irrelevant, especially drug related priors, because those wouldn't have existed either.

I know you don't have the capacity to understand that very, very basic logic, but that's something that I can't help you with. You should try talking to a grammar school teacher.



Yeah, no shit. Drugs are addictive. This is new information to you? If the drugs weren't illegal in the first place, then all prior drug offences wouldn't have happened, either. You seem to be missing the basic concept, which is pretty much par for course for you. Maybe you should go back to retarded person jabs?



This isn't the only thread, troll. You do it in every thread you post in.

Ahhhh....the insults. The offense of the defenseless.....

You do realize that there are a mass of non-drug crimes that drug users also commit, do you not? That is why I refer to the individuals contained in your misleading statistic as habitual criminals. Because by the time they end up in prison, their histories are littered with all manner of offenses. meaning that, a very large number of those that you seem to believe are incarcerated solely because of drug laws, would likely be in the same position if the state had decided to pursue the remaining charges. You see, most of those involved in drug use/trafficking to the extent that they are looking at prison do not simply seek to break the drug laws you so despise. Make the drugs legal. fine. But that leaves open the burglaries, identity thefts, shoplifting, weapons violations, check fraud, car theft, theft of resources, criminal trespasses, grand theft, and the entire panoply of other crimes that these very same people are engaged in. Simple addicts do not go to prison. Addicts that leave wide swaths of destruction in their wake do.

[BooRadley]

Because by the time they end up in prison, their histories are littered with all manner of offenses. meaning that, a very large number of those that you seem to believe are incarcerated solely because of drug laws, would likely be in the same position if the state had decided to pursue the remaining charges.

What number? What's your source? Or are you just telling us how you "feel" about it?

Make the drugs legal. fine. But that leaves open the burglaries, identity thefts, shoplifting, weapons violations, check fraud, car theft, theft of resources, criminal trespasses, grand theft, and the entire panoply of other crimes that these very same people are engaged in. Simple addicts do not go to prison. Addicts that leave wide swaths of destruction in their wake do.

Then why are they in prison for drug offences, not burglary and identity theft?

Ahhhh....the insults. The offense of the defenseless.....

You still don't see the joke in you saying that, do you? Guess you never will. Need to protect your fragile ego, and all that.

[Pho King]

What number? What's your source? Or are you just telling us how you "feel" about it?



Then why are they in prison for drug offences, not burglary and identity theft?



You still don't see the joke in you saying that, do you? Guess you never will. Need to protect your fragile ego, and all that.

I spent half a life in the criminal justice system. Contrary to what you want to believe with all of your heart, mere drug offenses-particularly possessory offense- do not land people in prison. what do you think happens to land a drug user or trafficker in jail? They get caught for that one indiscretion and some big mean judge drops the hammer on them? No. In fact, in most states, the first time offender is not even eligible for prison. Thats not what happens. Not the first time, and generally not even the second or third time, except in the case of trafficking. What happens is the individual caught has also been using someone else's identity. Or is also found with a firearm. And also has several prior felonies in their background. Felonies for which they may or may not have served time, but are used to aggravate the underlying offense.

AZ has the toughest drug laws in the country. take a look:

PERSONAL POSSESSION & USE OF DRUGS—§ 13-901.01
A person convicted of a first or second offense for the personal possession or use of a controlled substance as defined in § 36-2501 must be placed on probation unless the person is also convicted of a violent offense defined in § 13-901.03. Incarceration may not be imposed as an initial condition of probation for a first offense. If a person convicted of a first offense is found to be in violation of probation by committing an offense listed in Title 13, Chapter 34 or 34.1 or an act in violation of an order of the court related to drug treatment, the person may be incarcerated upon reinstatement of probation. Participation in an appropriate drug treatment or education program is a required condition of probation and each person enrolled in a program shall pay for participation in the program to the extent of the person’s



And here is the link to the full sentencing guidelines:

http://azcourts.gov/Portals/0/aoc/pd...Guidelines.pdf

Do people go to prison for their first or second drug possession offenses in AZ-the toughest state in the country? No. It is not even permitted. By the time an individual is facing prison time for a drug offense they have done some pretty spectacular things. Like import and distribute tons of marijuana. Which would still be a crime if the war on drugs was ended.

To top it all off, you seem incapable of understanding how the plea process greatly skews the statistics.

[BooRadley]

I spent half a life in the criminal justice system.

Oh, I'll bet you have.

By the time an individual is facing prison time for a drug offense they have done some pretty spectacular things. Like import and distribute tons of marijuana. Which would still be a crime if the war on drugs was ended.

Christ you're dense. If reefer weren't illegal, there would be no black market to motivate the illicit import of tons of marijuana. You don't seem to get that the "war on drugs" is what creates the entire black market, and all the associated crime. Why do you think there isn't a major problem with people importing tons of illicit whisky? You know, that used to be a major issue. We fixed it, and the gangs that were associated with the trade quickly fizzled to a managable size.

Is that completely beyond your capacity to connect cause and effect?

[Pho King]

hmmmmm. SO alcohol is now legal, so there is now no crime associated with alcohol.......interesting. False (as always), but interesting. I just like your emotion-based reasoning, Boo. "I hate the war on drugs. It causes to many people to be locked up. I know this because 51% of incarcerated individuals are imprisoned on drug offenses. I know this because of a........statistic". Awesome display of raw emotional power. You should stomp your feet while reciting those verses. It will give you more credibility.

[kellyb]

hmmmmm. SO alcohol is now legal, so there is now no crime associated with alcohol.......interesting. False (as always), but interesting.

.

He never argued that there was zero alcohol-related crime. That's a straw man.

FWIW, alcohol use actually increased during prohibition.

[Zordar]

FWIW, alcohol use actually increased during prohibition.

Myth.

There is no proof of this, and what little data there is available suggests a decrease in alcohol usage compared to pre-Prohibition levels.

(not that I would ever support something as evil as Prohibition, of course)

[Pho King]

He never argued that there was zero alcohol-related crime. That's a straw man.

FWIW, alcohol use actually increased during prohibition.

He did say this "You don't seem to get that the "war on drugs" is what creates the entire black market, and all the associated crime". An assertion that is patently untrue.

His assumption is that because he read a statistic that 5% of incarcerated individuals are in prison for drug offenses, if drugs were decriminalized, those people would not be there. An assertion that is also patently untrue. Why? Because drugs, like alcohol, are associated with all manner of other crimes. As lenient as we are with drug offenses (and alcohol offenses), it takes some spectacular criminal behavior that is repectitive to land someone in jail on a drug charge. Doing away with the drug laws would have little effect on the underlying behavior of the users.

Take his alcohol example. Alcohol offenses are not rare. Selling alcohol without a license, manufacturing alcohol, illegal possession of alcohol, furnishing minors with alcohol, etc. Alcohol related offenses are rampant. Our prisons are full of people whose offenses are so related.

And with most drugs, its the same. Legalize em, criminalize em, wont make much difference to the prison population. They will find a way to get there. 99% of them are criminals at heart.

[kellyb]

He did say this "You don't seem to get that the "war on drugs" is what creates the entire black market, and all the associated crime". An assertion that is patently untrue.

No, it's not. We really don't have any significant amounts of black market alcohol crime now.

Take his alcohol example. Alcohol offenses are not rare. Selling alcohol without a license, manufacturing alcohol, illegal possession of alcohol, furnishing minors with alcohol, etc. Alcohol related offenses are rampant. Our prisons are full of people whose offenses are so related.

A vast majority of those in prison for alcohol-related offenses are DUIs, which has nothing to do with the black market. Illegal manufacturing is incredibly rare.

And with most drugs, its the same. Legalize em, criminalize em, wont make much difference to the prison population. They will find a way to get there. 99% of them are criminals at heart.

Not true.

See: Protugal -

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opi...444824612.html

People are allowed to have up to 10 days-worth of any drug. Nuno Capaz, a sociologist in Lisbon, said, "We're not in the business of handing out criminal records. The police aren't stalking drug users to arrest them." The Portuguese criminal justice system is no longer overcrowded with drug users. According to the Institute of Drug and Drug Dependence, the number of people arrested for criminal offences related to drugs plummeted from 14,000 to an average of 5,000-5,500 per year.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...d931c6f679.5e1

The number of addicts considered "problematic" -- those who repeatedly use "hard" drugs and intravenous users -- had fallen by half since the early 1990s, when the figure was estimated at around 100,000 people, Goulao said.

Other factors had also played their part however, Goulao, a medical doctor added.

"This development can not only be attributed to decriminalisation but to a confluence of treatment and risk reduction policies."

Portugal's holistic approach had also led to a "spectacular" reduction in the number of infections among intravenous users and a significant drop in drug-related crimes, he added

[BooRadley]

hmmmmm. SO alcohol is now legal, so there is now no crime associated with alcohol.......interesting. False (as always), but interesting.

My god you're weak. But, if the only person you can fight is a strawman, I say give 'em hell, Phool!

He did say this "You don't seem to get that the "war on drugs" is what creates the entire black market, and all the associated crime". An assertion that is patently untrue.

Seriously, you get weaker by the minute. Are you going to tell me about the black market for parsley now? I mean, I'm sure someone has grown parsley and sold it without paying sales taxes or getting any FDA approval. So, by your reasoning, parsley crimes are as big a problem as crack crimes?

Yes, even if we legalized pot, there would still be people who grow it in their closet to avoid the taxes, but it wouldn't be like it is now. Of course, that would require the smallest amout of reason to understand, so it won't make any sense to you. That kind of goes without saying, though.

Why? Because drugs, like alcohol, are associated with all manner of other crimes. As lenient as we are with drug offenses (and alcohol offenses), it takes some spectacular criminal behavior that is repectitive to land someone in jail on a drug charge. Doing away with the drug laws would have little effect on the underlying behavior of the users.

Take his alcohol example. Alcohol offenses are not rare. Selling alcohol without a license, manufacturing alcohol, illegal possession of alcohol, furnishing minors with alcohol, etc. Alcohol related offenses are rampant. Our prisons are full of people whose offenses are so related.

Are 51% of the Americans in our prisons in there for buying kids beer? If not, then you're talking out of your ass (again).

And with most drugs, its the same. Legalize em, criminalize em, wont make much difference to the prison population. They will find a way to get there. 99% of them are criminals at heart.

What's your source for this? What's your basis for this argument? Just the way you feel about it, right? Any stats, criminal justice or criminal psychology studdies? Or just your general feelings about it?

This is all just you spouting off about your emotional need for a feeling of superiority, right? And that's why you keep projecting that fault of yours onto other people.

Or are you going to back this assertion up with any facts? Or, really, anything other than attacks on strawmen.

[Pho King]

No, it's not. We really don't have any significant amounts of black market alcohol crime now.



A vast majority of those in prison for alcohol-related offenses are DUIs, which has nothing to do with the black market. Illegal manufacturing is incredibly rare.



Not true.

See: Protugal -

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opi...444824612.html


http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...d931c6f679.5e1

from your link: "The Portuguese criminal justice system is no longer overcrowded with drug users. According to the Institute of Drug and Drug Dependence, the number of people arrested for criminal offences related to drugs plummeted from 14,000 to an average of 5,000-5,500 per year." How do they make such a leap? And what the fuck does Portugal have to do with us? We are totally different populations.

[Pho King]

My god you're weak. But, if the only person you can fight is a strawman, I say give 'em hell, Phool!



Seriously, you get weaker by the minute. Are you going to tell me about the black market for parsley now? I mean, I'm sure someone has grown parsley and sold it without paying sales taxes or getting any FDA approval. So, by your reasoning, parsley crimes are as big a problem as crack crimes?

Yes, even if we legalized pot, there would still be people who grow it in their closet to avoid the taxes, but it wouldn't be like it is now. Of course, that would require the smallest amout of reason to understand, so it won't make any sense to you. That kind of goes without saying, though.



Are 51% of the Americans in our prisons in there for buying kids beer? If not, then you're talking out of your ass (again).



What's your source for this? What's your basis for this argument? Just the way you feel about it, right? Any stats, criminal justice or criminal psychology studdies? Or just your general feelings about it?

This is all just you spouting off about your emotional need for a feeling of superiority, right? And that's why you keep projecting that fault of yours onto other people.

Or are you going to back this assertion up with any facts? Or, really, anything other than attacks on strawmen.

I've already deconstructed the statistic you really so heavily on. Its not my fault if you cling to the ideas you create from the statistics like a child with a teddy bear.

You know what they say about statistics as a science? Figures don't lie, but liars can figger."

[kellyb]

Myth.

There is no proof of this, and what little data there is available suggests a decrease in alcohol usage compared to pre-Prohibition levels.

(not that I would ever support something as evil as Prohibition, of course)

Look at figure 1 here (from that bastion of unbiased clarity, Cato, lol.)

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa157.pdf

[kellyb]

from your link: "The Portuguese criminal justice system is no longer overcrowded with drug users. According to the Institute of Drug and Drug Dependence, the number of people arrested for criminal offences related to drugs plummeted from 14,000 to an average of 5,000-5,500 per year." How do they make such a leap? And what the fuck does Portugal have to do with us? We are totally different populations.

Portugal's decriminalization was an experiment that US policy makers predicted would fail. They were wrong. What happened in Portugal isn't 100% assured to happen here, but the evidence indicates that it might or probably would. The Portugal evidence is some of the only evidence we have. Sometimes you gotta work with what ya' got.


What do you mean by "How do they make such a leap?"

[Zordar]

That figure backs up almost all available data on drinking during prohibition -- a steep immediate drop, moving back toward about 70-90% of "normalcy" as people started homebrewing/fermenting/distilling (Prohibition was great for the grape industry!) or buying illegally -- so I'm not quite sure what your point is?

[kellyb]

That figure backs up almost all available data on drinking during prohibition -- a steep immediate drop, moving back toward about 70-90% of "normalcy" as people started homebrewing/fermenting/distilling (Prohibition was great for the grape industry!) or buying illegally -- so I'm not quite sure what your point is?

By 1923 it was and stayed higher than in 1918. So, if anything, a slight overall increase compared to pre-prohibition.

[Going Postal]

Hey boo. Thanks for muddying the issue. You do know there is a difference between federal and state prisons?

From Wikipedia:

half of all persons incarcerated under state jurisdiction are for non-violent offenses, and 20% are incarcerated for drug offenses (in state prisons, federal prison percentages are higher).

Your 50.7 number under Drugs are probably using the post office to mail drugs, drug smuggling into the country, or doing drugs on federal property (this is separate from the military who has their own prisons unless you are a civilian).

[Pho King]

Portugal's decriminalization was an experiment that US policy makers predicted would fail. They were wrong. What happened in Portugal isn't 100% assured to happen here, but the evidence indicates that it might or probably would. The Portugal evidence is some of the only evidence we have. Sometimes you gotta work with what ya' got.


What do you mean by "How do they make such a leap?"

Lets think about all the variables that just might indicate that remedies to issues there are likely to work here:

1. Are the drug problems the same? ARe there similar numbers of users? Are they using the same drugs (like meth and crack and cocaine)?
2. Does the enormous population difference bring with it special problems?
3. Will the resource expenditures be the same here as in Portugal? IE-can we afford this solution.
4. Are the crimes committed by drug dealers rather equal across the countries?

The list is endless.

There was a study performed in Denmark about traffic and controlled chaos. In one city all traffic control devices were removed. As it turns out-in that city-traffic flowed much the way it does in a roller rink- controlled, due to the drivers themselves. It works. There.