Your position on Legalizing drugs

We are not talking about them legalizing marijuana, we are talking about them decriminalizing other drugs. The took away prison sentences for simple possession of most drug. Instead, they simply levy fines for it. Decriminalization is defined as the lowering of restrictions on something, or the lessening of the punishment for committing a crime. Their policy for possession of drugs like cocaine, heroin, etc, falls under that definition, They coupled these policies with funding for rehab programs to help those who become addicted.

 

This is the same kind of thinking that only hurts them.

I was watching this documentary on homeless the other day, and the one recurring theme I noticed is that wherever there are tons of homeless, you also find lots of well meaning lefties. The more well meaning they are, the more homeless there are. They feed on this charity, which is why they get more homeless every day.

The drug addicts share this attitude that society owes them something. "I shouldn't have to live like this" is something I heard a few times. Then there are those who actually want to be homeless. They are just enjoying their freedom, and don't have that "somebody owes me" mentality.

 

Re-legalize all drugs.

 

Where are they throwing addicts in jail because they are addicts?

 

They are on parole because of a felony crime they committed and they get out early based on some good behavior and reforming and yes staying clean so they can get a job and keep a job as part of their parole is an important component and if they do not that is a violationg of the agreement to release them early. So yes that should be a good enticement to stay clean.

 

By the time addicts seek help, there's nobody who wants to help them because they've alienated their friends and family. Sorry, but they made their bed. Time to sleep in it.

 

Simple possession is the most common crime committed by people convicted for drug related crimes. People whose only crime is using a drug make up the majority of those in prison for drug crimes.

 

Portugal's first steps was legalizing marijuana only. I think eventually they took steps to include other drugs, but have not followed it in years. The first results they saw was the youth losing interest in pot.

In truth, "decrim" is rather a semantic exercise. Some people don't like the sound of 'legalize' for some reason, so they try to use 'decriminalize' as though it makes a difference.

The Devil is in the details, but getting rid of the prohibition that brought all this nonsense is the goal, just as when we repealed the Volstead Act in 1934.

 

In the land of the “free”. An addict is usually in the possession of a controlled substance. If you are caught in the possession of a controlled substance in the US you are committing a “crime” for which you can be incarcerated. And worse if you just happen to be caught with possession near a school, the "crime" increases in severity. And there's the phony tactic of charge stacking. Additional charges are thrown at you such "intent to sell". So yes addicts are being thrown in jail because they’re addicts.

This is naive generalization. The for profit prison system is designed to be a revolving door that often targets drug addicts because they’re easy prey (see above). Private corporation profits rely on having as many people behind bars as possible. The plea bargain agreement is a tool used to achieve a 99% federal conviction rate bypassing all constitutional protections. You either sign it and along with that waive all your constitutionally protected rights and receive a lighter sentence or you're threatened with a draconian sentence if you decide you'd rather take your chances and exercise your constitutionally protected right to a trial. So most who are charged, truly guilty or truly innocent are never tried at all. Prison does nothing to reform drug addicts despite its phony description as a "correctional" facility. So addicts often return to their habits, get caught and back to jail. Good luck getting hired once you have a record, which is another way of punishing those who have been incarcerated for life. The system works so well there are over 2.3 million people behind bars in the land of the "free", the highest rate of any country on the planet including China, North Korea and Iran. There are over 7 million people involved in the criminal "justice" system in the US. This is why there are constant efforts to reform this unconstitutional system. The latest version called the First Step Act barely scratches the surface of what's really needed and it is hailed as a landmark bill.

 

in my view, if a woman wants to sell her body to make ends meet, let her do it and by legalizing it, it's safer. Same for drugs, if someone wants to snort cocaine or smoke pot, let them do it, it's their body. I don't believe the gloom and doom that some think will come true if we legalize all of this. People won't just start snorting cocaine and pot because its available, everyone knows the consequences. Some will, some won't but those who will, will be able to to do it it more safely by being able to access better quality (subjected to higher standards) and not have to go to dark dangerous places to obtain drugs. I myself have never done drugs (even smoked pot) and don't plan on doing drugs if they are legalized.

 

I think they are personal choices and none of government's business. At least it is none of federal government's business.

 

Well you just moved the goal post to selling illegal drugs and now your argument is we should not jail those who deal drugs because they are addicts.

And again those jailed committed other crimes, your rationale that if you are a drug addict you should get a bye and not have to go to jail if you commit other crimes is absurd along with the notion that private prison companies are driving sentencing. Everytime a judge sentences someone to one of these private prisons it cost the government money why would they do it to enrich other persons and cost the government more money? Are you saying our judges are all involved in some conspiracy?

 

Certainly not of the federal level and first time simple possession is not going to land you in jail these days without extenuating circumstances.
Again we don't put people in jail just because they are addicted to a substance its more nuanced than that.

 

How circular. A never ending supply of "clients" does wonders for share prices.

 

I think we should legalize all drugs, because if people want to poison their bodies, that is their choice and their right. It makes no sense to ruin people's lives and cost taxpayers by jailing drug offenders with hard criminals, for choices they made for themselves. We should allow companies to produce illegal drugs but most list the things they are putting in the drugs, and have addiction and health advisories for their drugs. If druggies steal to pay for their drugs, they should be imprisoned for a long time and pay for their crimes.

 

Constitutionally speaking, regulation of drugs falls under the purview of State and local government. The federal "war on drugs" is unconstitutional and a gigantic failure. End it and let States decide drug policy for themselves.

 

It figures when you have no understanding of the actual issues, throw a bunch of red herrings against the wall and hope they will stick.

No, we should not jail drug addicts just because they are drug addicts and we should not have unconstitutional "laws" designed to make a psychosocial problem a crime. If there was no such thing as an Illegal controlled substance for personal use there would be a lot less people incarcerated for breaking phony laws. This goes right back to the OP, all drugs should be decriminalized following a sensible model similar to Portugal.

And again you're generalizing for the purpose of trying to support a catastrophically failed system. Charge stacking does not necessarily mean the accused committed all the crimes he/she is being accused of committing.

And part 1 of your premise is a phony invented red herring. Part 2 is reality, private prison companies have a huge stake in driving sentencing because they have a bottom line that they try to control via lobbies and political support for tough on crime candidates.

Judges can only follow the guidelines of the criminal (in)justice system. They can't bypass them unlike a jury using jury nullification that the vast majority of accused never have access to. Once an accused signs a plea agreement a judge has no choice but to go along with the terms of the plea agreement designed by the prosecutor whose primary objective is to achieve the highest conviction rate possible for his/her own political purposes. The government is not profiting, private corporations such as Geo Group and Corrections Corporation of America are.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/16/us-prisons-jail-private-healthcare-companies-profit

No YOU're saying that, I never posted any such thing Mr. Red Herring.

 

I know to what I was responding

We don't just throw addicts in prison, there is an associated crime involved and being an addict should be a get out of jail free card. But in fact if our prisons are doing their job then it is a good place for an addict who has committed a crime to get cleaned up and through a rehab program.

And we don't do that.

And if wishes were fast trains to Texas but that still does not mean a person addicted to hard drugs and therefore unable to hold employment and will commit a crime and end up in jail for that crime. And the laws are changing for marijuana and even where they aren't yet law enforcement is taking a different look and I'm all for that.

That's what you're missing, I'm not the one who generalized.

How do they do that, do they file friend of court briefs in all these cases lobbying for a prison sentence?

so some round about conspiracy. You are accusing judges of being involved in bribery and quid pro quo deals? Is there some proof of this tie between higher prison sentences and longer prison sentences to states with private prison systems, and not due to the fact the state doesn't have enough of it's prison space?


Do Private Prisons Affect Court Sentencing?
∗
"
6 Conclusion
In this paper we provided first causal evidence of the effect of private prisons on incarceration
and sentencing and tested for the possible channels of these effects.
Using sentencing data from thirteen states and comparing county-pairs that straddle (sixteen)
state borders, we found that a doubling of private prisons’ capacities cause moderate (5.6 months)
increase in the sentencing length but has no effect on the probability of getting a prison term. We
find no effect of public prison capacities on incarceration. We find no evidence that this effect is
heterogeneous in race or age of the defendant.
Our research design rules out changes in state-legislation or police-enforcement as the driver,
indicating that our baseline effect comes out of the judiciary process. We rule out differential
electoral cycles in judges’ sentencing as a explanation, and conclude with a discussion of possible
and probable alternative channels"
chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/faculty_pages/christian.dippel/privateprisons_sentencing.pdf

Judges have great latitude in accepting plea deals. Who gets what in return from the prison system for these alleged more people sentenced theory? Can you cite me of some judges or legislatures who have ever been caught selling votes or sentencing to people who own private prisons?

So why would a judge sentence someone to prison he otherwise won't or a longer sentence than warranted, other than they now have more room with the public prisons already being overcrowded which might reduce sentence lengths out a necessity nor for reasons of justice.

 

http://fortune.com/2018/12/03/orego...ative-legalize-psychedelic-mushrooms-therapy/

 

Get a job, with a jail record?

 

Exactly, who the hell are these people to tell other adults what they can d do with their own bodies. All we are doing is make gangsters rich, sick people criminals and people afraid to let their kids play outside.

 

You either don't understand the subject matter or you support this unconstitutional and failed system. I'm guessing both.

I think you meant "not be a get out of jail free card". I already went through that and you didn't get it the first time so there's no point in rehashing.

Prisons serve only one purpose, to keep people behind bars, they are not rehab centers. In fact they often do just the opposite.

I already tried to educate you on the issue but you don't get it.

The Portugal model is a live working model, not a wish. It works and the US model is a catastrophic failure.

Wonderful. The war on drugs was Erlichmann's invention designed to incarcerate minorities and war protestors and it served to destroy many lives for decades. It's a perfect example of why the current system is a dismal failure. The current mentality on marijuana is a step in the right direction and should be applied to all drugs.

I'm not missing anything and you continue to generalize.

WTF are you talking about?

Red herring time again.

It's not just about the length of sentences. For profit prison corporations rely heavily on draconian laws, keeping the status quo and revolving doors for those in the system in order to maintain profits. That you don't see the immense conflict of interest is quite obvious.

Judges' "latitudes" are limited to sentencing guidelines, period.

 

Wow this is quite honest. I too did meth. I did not inject it but I smoked and snorted it. (I preferred to snort it) But I moved away from the influence (for other reasons) Every now and then I do miss the feeling but I did see what it did to friends who could not escape it and I agree legalizing it does not make a difference. It messes with your well being and the well being of those around you. Especially if you have children.

When it comes to weed I think it is better than alcohol

 

Well, I yam who I yam. Perhaps I "overshare" but I am that guy who does not care about your (in a general sense) opinion of me unless I love you or you can have a direct effect on my life.

At first, it's fun. Then it's a full time job. All fun and games until the worms come out to play. AKA "crank bugs" and "pickers".

Had one relapse a few days after I quit, then hardened my resolve and decided I had no death wish and refused to live that way. Quit cold turkey, that was 5 or 6 years ago and the very thought of it reminds me of the verse, "a dog returning to it's vomit". I would sooner eat a bullet than be paid the do a hit.

When people talk about how hard kicking an addiction is, I chuckle a bit.

You will quit (whatever) if you want. If you don't want, a Hollywood star's, 5 star rehab wont do any good.

 

Drug prohibition solves nothing, creates huge new problems, and severely worsens existing problems. It is an epic disaster and should be ended. But constitutionally speaking, State and local governments have the authority to pursue disastrous drug prohibition policies if they want. But they also have the authority to repeal drug prohibition entirely. The federal government has no power to prohibit drugs. Indeed, the bill of rights, properly interpreted, precludes the federal government from prohibiting drugs. See the ninth and tenth amendments, for starters.