3% of US population behind bars, on parole or on probation last year

[Alexander's Horse]

Well every country is different but noone could accuse us of not knowing about crime and punishment since the country started out as one giant prison camp.

You send a boy to gaol for car stealing and he comes out an armed robber.

[dannubis]

send him in the desert on the other hand ...

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Our rate is more like .3%.

Cowardly soft on crime weenies!

[lightblue]

More like less of a disparity between rich and poor, and more of a social safety net reducing the need for crime. Well, and a more sensible approach on drug users.

[Lancer]

3% is WAY too high. See, we need the death penalty! Get those numbers down fast...

We whack 2 of those three percent and there will only be 1% left. Now that's a gaol worth having...

[DanS]

You send a boy to gaol for car stealing and he comes out an armed robber.

My mom and dad's car got stolen 2 weeks ago by a 16-year old who broke out of boot camp juvie.

I guess I'd rather see him in jail. When it gets to be a criminals v. law-abiding citizen situation, you've got to protect the law-abiding citizens. I don't like the 3% number, but what are the alternatives when we've got really rough neighborhoods where we need to keep the peace? New York City and other cities have seen their crime rates plummet when they started to not take crap from criminals.

[Sava]

DanS: Rehab works... legalize, tax, and rehabilitate. Instead of punishing people for getting high, why don't we address the issue of why they get high in the first place? (i.e. economic and social policies that reduce poverty)

frankly, I don't think "getting high" is something people should be punished for... now other crimes while under the influence? that's different. But certainly someone smoking weed in the privacy of their own home isn't doing anything worth incarceration. Are they?

[DanS]

I'm sympathetic to that line of reasoning with regard to mj, but not sympathetic to that at all with regard to drugs like crack cocaine. Crack cocaine destroyed Southeast Washington. For about 15 years it was a war zone. It's just coming out of that era this year.

However, with regard to mj, I really doubt that our system could handle legalization. Legitimate sales of cigarettes are being attacked by the legal system, after all.

[Sava]

Originally posted by DanS
I'm sympathetic to that line of reasoning with regard to mj, but not sympathetic to that at all with regard to drugs like crack cocaine. Crack cocaine destroyed Southeast Washington. For about 15 years it was a war zone. It's just coming out of that era this year.

but irregardless of your opinions of other substances, the fact remains that prohibition doesn't work. Prohibition of these substances doesn't stop usage. It only gives criminals a source of income. And incarcerating users and non-violent offenders only perpetuates more crime because a convicted felon has a much harder time rejoining society. I'm sure I don't need to list re-offense rates. You're a smart guy.

Prohibition is the reason why areas like Southeast Washington suffer from drug crime. As I said, criminals wouldn't be able to make money if drugs were legal and available. And putting less people into the corrections system (a misnomer of sorts) allows that more people can lead productive lives despite substance abuse problems. Then, we can fund rehab programs to help people who have substance abuse problems, rather then locking up people who might otherwise lead normal, productive lives.

Do I approve of the use of crack or heroin? Absolutely not. But I recognize that curbing usage and abuse is best done through a comprehensive strategy of rehab in combination with socio-economic policies that allow people the opprotunity to succeed in life. And considering what the US spends fighting the drug war, it is a much more fiscally sound prospect funding such social programs with tax money from drug use. That way, the consumption of substances funds the solutions to their problems. That means less money wasted on law enforcement in a failing effort to police drug usage. That means tax revenue. And the beauty of it is, your income isn't paying for such welfare programs!!!!

However, with regard to mj, I really doubt that our system could handle legalization. Legitimate sales of cigarettes are being attacked by the legal system, after all.

That's only because state and local governments enact stupid tax policies with regards to cigarettes. Certainly an economic savvy and intelligent individual such as yourself can regonize the futility of certain tax policies that allow for illegitimate cigarette sales. It doesn't make much sense for the city of New York to tax cigarettes to insanely high levels when one cross a state line and purchase cheaper cigarettes. That's why I would propose treating marijuana and other drugs the same way we treat alcohol.

And I'd like to add that countries with more liberal drug laws have fewer problems as a result of their usage. Don't you think that correlation is worth taking into account when discussing strategies for decreasing drug usage?

For instance, the Dutch have much better policies regarding drugs. They have needle exchange programs that have significantly decreased the spread of HIV with regards to the use of hypodermic needles in heroin use. And marijuana usage among the 15-24 age group in the Netherlands is lower than America!! These facts should not be ignored.

[DanS]

Prohibition of these substances doesn't stop usage.

You're right, it doesn't. However, it does mitigate the wide-ranging and rather severe impact of this use by removing dealers and users from the general population.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Sava
DanS: Rehab works... legalize, tax, and rehabilitate. Instead of punishing people for getting high, why don't we address the issue of why they get high in the first place? (i.e. economic and social policies that reduce poverty)

It's well known that it's poverty that drives upper-middle class students to smoke pot.

[mrmitchell]

Isn't the number for MJ trying insanely high? Like, 2/3 of all Americans?

Doesn't that make prohibition undemocratic?

We're seeing the same thing that happened after alcohol was illegalized in the 1920's. Illegal rings rose up supplying booze and using a whole raft of other illegal and legal services (from prostitution to laundromats) to fund the operation. And with drugs today? Illegal rings that make, ship, and distribute the stuff, usually dipping their hands in a bunch of other illegal activities as well.

An alcoholic wasn't deterred by Prohibition, and a pothead isn't deterred by the Drug War.

[Sava]

Originally posted by DanS


You're right, it doesn't. However, it does mitigate the wide-ranging and rather severe impact of this use by removing dealers and users from the general population.

Go walk through a crime ridden area and tell me that we're winning the "war on drugs". Go walk around in the South Side of Chicago and tell me the drug laws are keeping the dealers off the streets? And BTW, even if we assume drug usage stays the same regardless of legality, who do you rather have making money off of drugs? Stores and businesses? Or gang bangers and criminals? All things being equal, I'd rather criminals and gangs not have a source of income.

As long as criminals have a means of making a LOT OF MONEY, you arrest one, two more pop up in it's place. The only way to get rid of it is to tackle demand.

The best we can hope for is less demand for using drugs... that means less people wanting to use drugs. Part of this has to do with socio-economic conditions. There will always be some people who use substances. The best we can do is provide these people with programs to help abuse. Personally, I think that's better than the criminal colleges that are currently housing offenders.

[Kuciwalker]

We should allow criminals to join the army and get all charges dropped

[Last Conformist]

Time to sent up shtraf battalions?