Mexico Decriminalizes Small-Scale Drug Possession 640
Professor_Quail notes an AP story that begins, "Mexico enacted a controversial law Thursday decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and other drugs while encouraging free government treatment for drug dependency. The law sets out maximum 'personal use' amounts for drugs, also including LSD and methamphetamine. People detained with those quantities will no longer face criminal prosecution when the law goes into effect Friday." An official in the attorney general's office said, "This is not legalization, this is regulating the issue and giving citizens greater legal certainty... for a practice that was already in place." In 2006, the US criticized a similar bill that had no provisions for mandatory treatment, and the then-president sent it back to Congress for reconsideration.
It's about goddamn time (Score:5, Insightful)
And California is releasing the "non violent" (Score:3, Insightful)
Prohibition II may soon be over.
we need to end drug prohibition (Score:5, Insightful)
Gangs are the root. Legalization is the pesticide (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless the drug trade is legalized, the gangs and drug cartels will always hold a monopoly on its sale. Decriminalizing minor possession does nothing but keep users on the street where they can continue to fund the gangs.
Mexico is in the middle of a huge drug war. The fighting is real and assassinations and kidnapping are frequent occurrences. This step seems to be a way of curbing the violence by letting users stay out of the prisons.
You aren't ever going to win the battle against weeds by cutting the leaves off. You need to pull the plant out by the root.
Legalize Selling (Score:1, Insightful)
You still have to deal with disreputable dealers, drugs which are laced with filler or worse, and the dangerous pain in the ass that scoring drugs usually is.
Legalize selling small quantities of these drugs and we will all be alot better off.
Score a bag of pot if you don't believe me.
Re:And California is releasing the "non violent" (Score:5, Insightful)
Canada already turns a blind eye to small time Pot. (Check out the documentary The Union [theunionmovie.com])
USA has the highest rate of incarcerated people per capita of any country other than possibly China. (who doesn't release stats like that)
I can come home and destroy my liver after a long day at work, but I can't sit down and enjoy some THC?
Re:we need to end drug prohibition (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Gangs are the root. Legalization is the pestici (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem will likely be that they won't legalize the sale. If they only allow enough for personal use, the traditional dealers are out, and if they don't let people get licenses to sell or let doctors prescribe it (what doctor would prescribe meth? coke maybe.. but meth?) then the point of allowing possesion is sort of like DVDs and DECSS. "Sure, you can make backup copies! But no, sorry, you can't sell the software that can make them."
Re:we need to end drug prohibition (Score:5, Insightful)
The nanny state stuff is getting to be real nonsense. A state the values it citizens and attempts to preserve their lives is not nor ever was a nanny state. If fact the whole nanny state nonsense came about as a result of limits placed upon private interests and their ability to exploit the citizens of a nation.
Prison for drug users is not a nanny state solution, how could anyone consider the idea that preventing someone from using drug by imprisoning them for thirty years or more in harsh, violent and dehumanising institutions is what a nanny would recommend.
Destroying drug users was blatant knee jerk politics, peoples lives were destroyed so hard on crime arse holes could get elected. The war on drugs straight from hollywood movie scripts to real life, a fantasy becomes a real life nightmare, brought to you by what was nothing but a shallow self serving actor, who acted the part and used the best PR techniques and mass media to created an illusion that did not preserve the lives of millions of people but destroyed them and in the process sent billions of dollars up in smoke.
Not only was this not bad enough but, via threats of economic and military punishments this stupidity was forced on other countries, literally billions of peoples lives affected, so that some of the most worthless scum on the planet could empower and enrich themselves. Instead of throwing drug users in prison, they should have been throwing corrupt politicians and corporate executives in prison, what a different world in would be now if the last thirty years had not be blown on greed and stupidity.
The war on drugs is over... (Score:5, Insightful)
The war on drugs is over. Everybody lost.
Re:And California is releasing the "non violent" (Score:5, Insightful)
At this point and time Marc is going to jail.
This is rather absurd, isn't it? The world economy is in the shitter, the US debt out of control, violent crime rises as does unemployment... yet these moronic, relentless conservatives in the Justice Dept. somehow believe they deserve a pat on the back for spending ?millions battling Canada for extradition of a single man that sold... seed. And our taxes will be paying to board him for a few years.
I'd like to ask these idiots: "in what way has the pursuit of prosecution of Marc Emory NOT hurt America?"
Re:we need to end drug prohibition (Score:4, Insightful)
News for nerds? (Score:2, Insightful)
I have tried marijuana a couple of times to fit in with the others and to experiment the sensation. Sure I had a few great laughs but the effects on the awareness are horrible and take long to completely get out of your system. I'd have a similar story for alcohol.
Although I sympathize with less zealous drugs policies because tougher ones do not solve the problem -which possibly isn't truly there- but just create more criminals, I cannot see why this is of relevance in a nerds forum.
Decriminalization in Light of the Drug War (Score:3, Insightful)
Calderon is a conservative politician who hates the drug business. He hates it so much that he actually unleashed the Mexican army against the drug cartel. Unfortunately for him, the cartel has tremendous firepower (smuggled from the United States) and fought the army in the streets. The army hurt the dominant cartels just enought to splinter them. Now, the splinters are fighting each other.
Calderon is probably rethinking whether he can actually win the drug war. This decriminalization may be the first sign that he is accepting the fact that narcotics is an integral part of Mexican culture.
Re:legalization (Score:3, Insightful)
there's enough problems with legal drugs like alcohol
Prohibition didn't work for alcohol and it clearly isn't working for drugs.
why do you people keep insisting the answer is MORE drugs?!?!
You must have "rocks in your head" if you think that making drugs illegal stops people from using them.
Legalization would reduce the price of drugs and reduce crime. It would allow maintenance and treatment. And it would probably not increase drug usage any more; anybody who wants to use drugs is already using.
Re:we need to end drug prohibition (Score:5, Insightful)
You already do. Drugs, both legal and illegal are everywhere. From the wild cocaine parties of the rich and famous to the rampant use of pretty damned near everything by the 'middle class' and of course, the 'druggies'. If you think your neighbors aren't partaking of something you are either deluding yourself or living out with the sheep.
It's time for SANE drug laws. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The war on drugs is over... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And California is releasing the "non violent" (Score:3, Insightful)
It failed because we the people threw a royal hissy fit.
You could call it a manifestation of popular sovereignty bucking big gov off it's back. You could use it as proof of how well we have been taken hostage by alcohol's addiction.
The party hardies in us all will never listen to proof of how bad booze is, so it obviously has to be the former.
We the people want our booze and we ultimately don't give a shit what it does to anyone but Number One.
Re:And California is releasing the "non violent" (Score:5, Insightful)
That is all
Re:Gangs are the root. Legalization is the pestici (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know why I bother replying, but...
First, "Drug cartels" is not a monopoly. There are more than one.
Second, look at the tobacco industry. Tobacco has always been legal, but people who profit from human suffering at that scale have always been, and will always be, scum. Sure, legal drug cartels might finance fewer gangs, but they'd finance more lobbyists instead.
Re:And California is releasing the "non violent" (Score:4, Insightful)
It always bugs me when people use this argument, I would be all for banning alcohol as well, it does far more damage then other drugs, but unfortunately they tried at already and it didn't work
There's nothing wrong with the argument AFAICT. They ended Prohibition because it didn't work -- too many people drank anyway, all making it illegal did was drive everything underground and encourage crime -- and they should lift "Prohibition on Marijuana" for the exact same reasons.
Re:Oh yeah, right (Score:5, Insightful)
I usually roll with the slashdot crowd on liberty issues but not here. There's a reason medicine is locked up in pharmacies behind a prescription. People are stupid; very stupid.
Generally speaking, I agree with you -- heroine is a much more dangerous drug than, say, marijuana, and it should be kept out of peoples' hands to the extent possible.
The tough question, however, is how do we go about doing that? The current method -- making heroine illegal to sell or possess -- had had limited success, to put it diplomatically. Heroine junkies can still get heroine whenever they want it and can pay for it; their only problem is raising the cash to pay for their addiction, which is often done through petty crime.
So making heroine illegal has made heroin expensive, and thereby encourages heroine junkies to become criminal heroine junkies. Not exactly the result we wanted. (It may have kept some unknown other number of people from trying heroine in the first place -- but it's impossible to know how many. Personally I would imagine that heroine's reputation is a more effective deterrent than law enforcement in that regard, but that's just a guess)
I don't have a solution to the problem; I wish I did.
Re:Decriminalization in Light of the Drug War (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that most of the profits (thought to be more than 75%) that the drug cartels make are not from narcotics, but from cannabis. The only real way to seriously cripple the Mexican drug cartels and minimize the violence is to completely legalize cannabis (better yet, all soft, nonaddictive drugs) in the United States (where the vast majority of their market is in), and let the legal, taxed, free market steal the cartels' business. After all, what stoner would want to buy crappy Mexican schwag from shady dealers when he can get high-quality product from the local coffeeshop, or just grow it in his back yard?
Re:An opinion from mexico (Score:2, Insightful)
I've been to Mexico. You need to tackle corruption first, then worry about drugs.
Re:we need to end drug prohibition (Score:4, Insightful)
Surprisingly, the man survived
Not surprising at all - no one has ever died of an overdose of LSD. Not to mention the link between LSD use and long-term psychosis is tenuous, at best. I would take that physics teacher's story with a big grain of salt.
Re:Decriminalization in Light of the Drug War (Score:5, Insightful)
I have read a post some time ago detailing how legalizing some drugs can effectively stop criminality. I think it was mostly about cannabis. Think about it, drugs finance huge businesses:
- Gangs
- Terrorist cells, Al Kaida
- dictatorships such as North Korea (I read some days ago)
Imagine the huge effects that it would have if these would run out of money -> No new weapons -> Losing importance -> Dictatorships can be overthrown.
Maybe I am thinking too blue-eyed, but it is a lot of money. Stopping the money flow at the source could have global consequences. We tried stopping the drug users from using.
Re:It's about goddamn time (Score:5, Insightful)
No doubt Mexico achieves this admirable statistic by ensuring they house their criminals *outside* of prisons. These upstanding citizens use the freedom you've described to shoot police execution style, sometimes going north of the border for variety.
What a country!
I'm pretty sure the overwhelming majority of our American prison population would not go around executing police after being released from prison.
I know you were going for funny, but the foundation of your joke is not only false, but bolsters the notion that keeping 1 in 25 Americans in prison is a *good* thing.
Re:And California is releasing the "non violent" (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd agree with you if it wasn't for one thing. alcohol has been shown to be beneficial for people post heart attack in reasonable quantities. Cannabis also is useful for pain control for MS sufferers.
Thats not to say there are no negative effects if you over use either of these substances.
Lets look at a bigger problem heart disease
http://www.cdc.gov/heartDisease/statistics.htm [cdc.gov]
In 2005 Heart Disease was responsible for 27.1% of all American deaths.
In 2009, heart disease is projected to cost more than $304.6 billion, including health care services, medications, and lost productivity.
The biggest substance abuse in the world today is food and the most lethal versions are fast foods high in fat content and sugar. The biggest dealers of this junk are household names and not even children have any protection in law.
Even worse there are companies taking healthy food and cutting it with junk like transfats and selling it on the open market, they are even allowed to advertise on the TV.
The biggest problems with drugs are not the substances themselves but the legal framework surrounding them.
The resources consumed just by locking up drug users in prison, the crimes that are committed to pay black market rates for drugs that cost pennies to produce. Yet the real killers are allowed to operate openly legally.
The worst of the stupidity is that some drugs are given out which are worse than what people choose to use but have the one advantage of being legal. Logically the war on drugs is pointless and needs to end, far better to do something constructive like improving the health of the nation.
Yes drug use isn't exactly great for the health of the nation but throwing users in prison or giving them addictive or damaging legal substitutes is not helping.
I'm barely scratching the surface of these issues, two interesting questions why do people use drugs and why are some people so antidrugs.
Obviously some people use drugs to an extreme which is damaging but for myself the therapeutic moderate use of alcohol will prolong my life and the worst things i've put in my body have been and are perfectly legal.
Re:we need to end drug prohibition (Score:4, Insightful)
Interestingly, though there are no documented cases of it actually occurring, LSD can kill... the same way water can kill. You can drown in it.
Re:Decriminalization in Light of the Drug War (Score:1, Insightful)
...an integral part of Mexican culture.
... I know you're not trying to be racist...
Since when is "Mexican" a race? I'm pretty sure it's a nationality.
Re:we need to end drug prohibition (Score:3, Insightful)
ironically i had a drug test at work today and it came up positive for opiates, good thing i told them about the cold and flu medication i'd been taking (swine flu i'm sure of it)
Re:Decriminalization in Light of the Drug War (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd go a step further and make hard drugs prescription drugs. Go to a doc, get a receipt telling you're addicted and get your dose in the next hospital. Sure that works easier with social healthcare, but according to Obama the US are gonna get that soon anyway, can as well append that to the deal.
Yes, a lot of addicts want to get out, but we don't have enough rehabiliation centers and drug withdrawal clinics, and since there's no money in that and it's not really something you can sell to your voters if you make it public funded ("why should I pay for their addiction"), we won't see many come into existance. So why not do the next best thing and at least hurt the ones that profit from it?
If you want to win the war against drugs, you first of all have to cut off the bigwig dealers from money. You can't fight against the addicts and trying to weed out the little dealers isn't going to work out either. Locking up addicts and small drug dealers only makes your prisons even more to places where drugs are dealt and pushed. And small dealers are easily replaced, for every small dealer locked up 10 are stepping up and hoping to move in on their turf. And of course you can't lock up the big dealers because they are almost untouchable, either not in your country or so far removed from the actual deals that you can't pin the drugs to them.
You want to win that war? Hit where it hurts, at the wallet of the bigshots. To do this, all you have to do is offer the addicts a cheap, reliable and clean alternative to the expensive, uncalculable and usually adulterated drugs they have to get in a shady back alley. What addict would not use your government issue drugs? Drugs aren't expensive to make. Especially if you can manufacture them in a wholesale fashion. They get expensive due to the risk associated with them and the amount of middlemen involved.
Cut their money supply. Bleed them dry. And you'll see that war is over before long. Instantly you will see a sharp drop in money related crimes because addicts no longer need huge amounts of money to supply themselves. At the same time a lot of the resources currently wasted on monitoring and fighting drug trafficking and dealing will be free to be used in other, more beneficial ways. In the end we might even have enough money to put more addicts that want out on withdrawal and give them a chance to find their way back into society.
The current 'war' will only lead to more crime, more people in prison and more money being wasted to fight those crimes and monitor those prisoners. How the hell does that help me, make me safer or protect me from drugs? Because so far, I can't see a shortage in any kind of drugs, even after decades of 'war'.
Re:Decriminalization in Light of the Drug War (Score:2, Insightful)
... the fact that narcotics is an integral part of human culture.
Fixed that for you.
Re:It's about goddamn time (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't that the point ? if less activities are criminal , you should end up with less criminals
Re:It's about goddamn time (Score:5, Insightful)
I didn't propose your straw man, you did.
What you said was:
"These upstanding citizens use the freedom you've described to shoot police execution style, sometimes going north of the border for variety."
In response to the notion that we should lower our incarceration rate. While, technically you didn't say that that is what would happen, the implication is clear. This is the standard Bushian bullshit tactic, like saying "Iraq" and "9/11" in the same sentence, but being careful not to state that they are actually related.
And here you do it again:
Shooting police is a bad career move if you reside in a nation of laws. No doubt they'd stick to easier prey and send the crime rates back up to the days when the criminal justice system didn't understand recidivism and that career criminals commit most crime. In Mexico, they send the Army to quell violence.
Are you saying that the bulk of our prison population is notably violent? If not, then why do you keep bringing up the parallel of violence to the level where the military is needed?
If you're *not* saying that releasing a significant percentage of our prison population is going to result in the need for calling in the army to deal with them, and you don't want people to think that's what you're saying, then quit bringing it up.
You're trying to scare people into supporting tossing people in jail who don't belong there. Attitudes like yours is responsible for ruining the lives of otherwise innocent people. How can you live with yourself?
I concur that having that rate of incarceration is not optimal. Any sane person desires less criminal activity.
You're begging the question. You're assuming that everyone in prison actually belongs there.
The point being made here is that the laws themselves are flawed, and that there are a *lot* of people in prison right now who don't belong there. How can you support such an atrocity? It's unconscionable.
What's your suggestion for lowering it without having them commit new crimes?
Three things:
1. Education
2. Reduce poverty
3. Repeal all laws which send people to jail without a reasonable amount of harm to an innocent third party
Re:we need to end drug prohibition (Score:4, Insightful)
Now now, let's not blow things out of proportion. The Mexican drug gangs aren't terrorists, they're organised criminals. Organised criminals will kill thousands of people for money and power and for getting in their way. Terrorists will kill dozens of people to make a political point. So you see we don't have to be afraid of the Mexican drug gangs because they have perfectly rational, evil, criminal reasons for what they do. Hooray!
Re:we need to end drug prohibition (Score:2, Insightful)
In the case of marijuana, it's more likely than you think.
Re:Decriminalization in Light of the Drug War (Score:5, Insightful)
This brings up a point that the self-proclaimed "drug warriors" don't like to think about: essentially every street drug is available to people IN PRISON. Read another way, it means that even if the entire country was run like a prison - there would still be a drug "problem". Just exactly how far are people willing to go to enforce these laws?
Re:It's about goddamn time (Score:5, Insightful)
What's your suggestion for lowering it without having them commit new crimes?
ooh, ooh! I got this one.
How about we QUIT MAKING THEM CRIMINALS in the first place, by repealing BULLSHIT LAWS like the ones that send people to prison over growing/smoking/selling a FUCKING PLANT?
Re:Decriminalization in Light of the Drug War (Score:1, Insightful)
Unfortunately for him, the cartel has tremendous firepower (smuggled from the United States) and fought the army in the streets.
There are some guns brought in from the US like semi-automatic pistols, but the vast majority of the arms favored by the drug cartels like fully-automatic assault rifles, sub-machineguns, grenades, rocket-launchers, and heavy machineguns come from the Mexican military themselves and smuggled in from countries to the south of Mexico.
Obamas' statement on one of his recent trips to Mexico that a high percentage of the guns being used by the drug cartels originated in the US was debunked; that "fact" was a BATF statistic of the percentage of the serial numbers of weapons captured that were sent to the BATF by Mexican authorities for tracing. However, only those weapons already suspected to come from the US had their serial numbers reported to the BATF, which was a vanishingly-small percentage of the total weapons. This skewed the percentages reported by the BATF.
It's simply another intentionally-misleading statistic that's used to attempt to demonize private gun ownership in the US in the liberals' (no, they're not "progressives", they're *liberals*!) longtime and ongoing effort to ban individual gun ownership in the US.
Strat
Re:Decriminalization in Light of the Drug War (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:we need to end drug prohibition (Score:3, Insightful)
where do the small amounts come from? (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm not sure I get how this will automatically reduce violent drug crime. Who is going to provide these small amounts of drugs? Take pot, for example. It's still illegal to grow pot. It's still illegal to distribute pot. It's still illegal to possess more than a few joints. You won't be picking up your joints at the pharmacy, so where are you going to get them? The only thing that has changed, is that law enforcement is being told to leave casual end users alone, and to instead focus their attention on the producers and distributors. This isn't really "legalization", this is just a shift in priorities. Violent drug crime in Mexico won't decrease, and we'll subsequently see Mexico bandied about as an example of the fact that drug legalization doesn't work, when in fact no real legalization has actually taken place.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Gangs are the root. Legalization is the pestici (Score:4, Insightful)
Decriminalisation is no substitute for legalisation. In fact, in my view, it is actually worse than putting resources into enforcing the law, both from the perspective of society and from the perspective of drug law reform.
Instead of creating a legal industry of suppliers, decriminalisation keeps all supply in the black market. For gangsters, decriminalisation is a license to grow money, because users won't be harassed by the police. All of the problems of the black market continue to exist and get worse. This means more crime.
In turn, this means that prohibitionists* can point to "failed decriminalisation experiments" as evidence that drugs should not be legalised. I have heard Alaska, the Netherlands and Portugal used in exactly this way; if the drugs had been fully legalised, the prohibitionists might not be able to point to increases of certain social problems, objections of local people, etc. Far from being a stepping stone towards legalisation, decriminalisation is a step backwards.
* I am not one of these people.
Re:It's about goddamn time (Score:3, Insightful)
*Finally* a *sane* person. Thank you for using proper logic. It's a rare sight nowadays, but it's nice to see.
I second your statements.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Worse idea GOING (Score:3, Insightful)
This will increase demand, while not allowing legal supply to increase. It WILL be filled by gangs.
Probably... BUT...
It will reduce the number of cases police and the courts have to deal with, reduce the load on the jails, and reduce the corruption among the police (when it is no longer a crime to posses a small personal quantity, drug user can't be blackmailed by a corrupt police officer when it is found on him/her).
In short... this will create a better police force and also provide better crime statistics.
It is a small step, but a step in the right direction.
Prohibition parallels (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's something that amazes me about the war on drugs. The USA learnt the hard way that prohibition couldn't work. Yet even after learning their lesson they still tried the same fucking thing over again. It's been a continuous failure for decades, but it's still going on. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it", but everyone remembers the prohibition. Everyone knows who Al Capone is, and everyone knows who Manuel Noriega or Pablo Escobar are, yet we fail to draw the parallels.
Well the problem is that in order to do the necessary changes you need the public opinion to back you strongly, and an administration with the political capital to make that happen. So it's no wonder it didn't happen before when political campaigns made the war on drug seem like a desirable thing, but for all we know the American public opinion may be soon ready for that to happen.
Re:The war on drugs is over... (Score:1, Insightful)
Yeah, except for the dealers, politicians and private prison operators. They're still doing pretty well out of it.
Re:An opinion from mexico (Score:3, Insightful)
I live in Mexico, and this will be just another excuse for cops avoid to do their work and let people sell drugs on streets, as it happens now.
You are right. Get the drug sellers off the streets and put them behind counters. Make the cops do their jobs enforcing regulations, not prohibitions. This is the road to drug peace.
It's easy for you say "bring me the drugs", you don't fear everyday to end in middle of a gun shooting for drug wars.
When have you feared being shot by alcohol, tobacco, or caffeine cartels? Those drugs are well regulated and made by a peaceful industry. Shouldn't we use that as a model for dealing with other drugs?
Re:The cost of legalization (Score:3, Insightful)
The legality of something never prevents people from partaking in it.
Honestly, if the reason you avoid doing something is because it's forbidden / you don't want to be caught, you've got some maturing to do.
I'd love to link to the Wikipedia article, but essentially, children display a few levels of maturity:
#1 - They don't do something because they'll be punished
#2 - They don't do something because they're told they shouldn't
#3 - They don't do something because they believe it is wrong.
Honestly, without being judgemental, it sounds like you're still on the first step, which is both a little scary and sad.
Re:Decriminalization in Light of the Drug War (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree with your assessment of socialized medicine, but your analysis is essentially sound. Instead of the government manufacturing drugs, though, I'd propose that you simply decriminalize the drugs completely. If you get Merck and GSK turning out high-quality (read: lower risk) drugs, available by prescription, you've solved the problem without expanding the power of government.
From my perspective, the "war on drugs" has been one of the biggest mistakes in American history. Many of our essential freedoms have been stripped for this purpose, and the problem has only gotten worse. Now that public opinion is starting to swing more towards decriminalization of at least marijuana, we now have the "war on terrorism". One step at a time, we're losing individual freedoms and gaining government control. This is not a good thing.
Re:It's about goddamn time (Score:5, Insightful)
Puritanical moralists and Bible Thumpers ensure that the current punitive drug laws will be kept on the books. They regard it as a moral obligation to implement punitive social control systems without regard to actual outcomes.
Any pleasure not got from grovelling before their imaginary celestial friend is sinful, and must be fought no matter the cost. (Externalizing the "costs" of being "righteous" is easy, ask the Taliban.) Damage mitigation isn't even on the table.
Re:It's about goddamn time (Score:3, Insightful)
BS.
People drink and drive, an act of poor judgment caused by a legal addictive substance coupled with poor judgment. Until booze is illegal, the whole war on drugs is hypocritical.
Many people exceed the speed limit just for the thrill of going fast, an act of poor judgment caused by access to overpowered vehicles. Until all cars are limited to 10 horsepower, your arguments aren't being applied appropriately.
The whole stupidity of the drug war is that its effects only apply to those who get caught. Don't get caught and you can be president. There's no justice or logic in it. It's sole purpose is fund prisons and the legal system -- it's like socialism for "the man" and certainly in top 3 of governmental wasteful spending of my hard earned dollars.
Re:Decriminalization in Light of the Drug War (Score:2, Insightful)
Not all "soft" drug users are addicts, but pretty much anyone doing anything but marijuana are addicts as most recreational drugs are almost as addictive as nicotine. Legalizing drugs does not cause more people to be addicts. There are only so many people attracted to the risks and rewards of drugs.
When Prohibition in the USA was repealed how long did it take for the violence around the alcohol trade to end? Only months. As soon as legal alcohol was available organized crime left the business.
The only thing the war on drugs accomplishes is making criminals extremely wealthy.
Re:Decriminalization in Light of the Drug War (Score:5, Insightful)
A race is where people see it and racial divisions are certainly not a universal concept. Closer to a social construct if you ask me.
So we need to accept all of that "it means whatever you think it means" bullshit, merely because words like "race" and "ethnicity" and "nationality" and "religion" and the differences among them are too hard? Really?? How about we instead decide that if someone doesn't have a working understanding of what those terms mean, then perhaps that person is not qualified to speak about them. That's so much better than lowering the standards and this is one area that has a particularly low signal-to-noise ratio.
Re:It's about goddamn time (Score:5, Insightful)
Only if the laws are just and reasonable. For example, during the Prohibition, quite a few presumably sane people desired more criminal activity, as that helped drive down the price of alcohol. Similarly, a sane person might desire more abandonware sites, since they help preserve the history of our digital culture by breaking copyright and distributing otherwise unavailable material. And finally, to stop beating around the bush, I'd imagine that most sane people would be rooting for the horrible criminals who hid Jews in their homes in Nazi Germany.
Not to mention the rather famous British traitor George Washington, who's legacy of violent crime - indeed, even shooting at British officials - still casts its shadow on modern world.
Re:It's about goddamn time (Score:3, Insightful)
A person commits X act. He is determined to be "criminal" or "not criminal" based on Government definitions. Being "criminal" or "not criminal" affects what you can do, such as getting a decent-paying job.
Is this really such a difficult thing to understand?
Re:It's about goddamn time (Score:3, Insightful)
Many people that favor decriminalization and even legalization do not use them, they just find that the current "war" on drugs is a waste of money and resources that does more to increase criminal activity than decrease it. I noticed you didn't mention the open bottle of alcohol that was found in her car. Why is it people are so much more tolerant of far more addictive and destructive substances simply because the government gave up on a similar "war" years ago?
Re:It's about goddamn time (Score:5, Insightful)
50% of the prison population is there for non-violent offenses. Start there. If you believe that being in prison has turned them violent, that's all the more reason to keep as many non-violent offenders as possible out of prison and to reform the prison system immediately before we make matters even worse. If you don't believe that then it's highly unlikely that they'll suddenly take up shooting cops.
As for avoiding having them commit new crimes, perhaps some of the 'crimes' being committed shouldn't be crimes at all. Beyond that, balance the economy so people don't feel (somewhat justifiably) that they're stuck as a permanent underclass and they'll probably commit less crime.
That includes allowing the punishment to be over when the sentence is served. If it carries a permanent stigma and makes them a permanent member of the underclass, there WILL be recidivism.
The more society threatens your ability to have a nice living, the more rational going to war against that society becomes.
Re:It's about goddamn time (Score:3, Insightful)
What exactly still makes a pot user a criminal if using pot is not a crime? Your sarcasm got in the way of your logic.
Re:It's about goddamn time (Score:3, Insightful)
Irregardless of whatever view we might have on the future legal status of drugs. We have to conceed that it is currently illegal. Per accepted legal standards, people who break a law that dictates a prison sentence do belong there. Yes, people who break laws should be punished.
And now we don't. Those people should be freed.
What's more, many of us didn't believe they should be in jail back when all this started. Just because a majority of my fellow Americans believed that something was wrong, that does not make it wrong, it just makes it (if laws were passed) illegal.
It is legal to put these people in jail, and in some fucked up states, it's even mandatory (mandatory sentences and three strikes laws are also horrendous atrocities). But it's still wrong. It's still evil to ruin a person's life like that without due cause, and getting stoned is not cause for imprisonment.
Of the two, I'd say those who put them in jail are engaged a significantly greater wrong than those they are jailing. Does that seem right to you?
3. Repeal all laws which send people to jail without a reasonable amount of harm to an innocent third party.
This is the weakest argument ever for lowering incarceration rates. To lower the rate, make crimes illegal.
I'll assume you meant make crimes legal.
I'm not talking about making crimes legal. I'm talking about making using drugs legal. I don't think it's a crime in the "it's so bad it shouldn't be allowed" sense, but it is in the "it's illegal" sense. When those two senses aren't in sync, something should probably be done.
I would make the flip argument here. A drug that is driving such a large percentage of the population to knowingly commit crimes that could lead to harsh prison sentences must be addictive and lead the user to commit acts of poor judgement. I hope we agree that breaking laws that lead to prison is not good judgement. What other types of poor judgement would we see if these drugs were used more commonly?
Poor judgement isn't illegal.
Food, sex, driving, walking, swimming, horses, mud, sticks, rocks, houses, clothes, jobs, Windows, sports, BEER ... These all often lead to people making poor judgements, and most of them would lead to "crime" rates higher than drug prohibition were they deemed illegal. Your argument is extremely ignorant. But that it is in defense of imprisoning otherwise normal people is disgusting.
Re:And California is releasing the "non violent" (Score:4, Insightful)
The majority of the Republican base are anti-authoritarian. The leadership of the party is authoritarian, though, and the voters typically go along with it when faced with the choice of that or an out-and-out socialist.
Wake up!
The majority of the Republican base are pro-authority. The Democratic Party leadership is so far from socialist to suggest otherwise is nothing but a declaration of your complete ignorance of political terminology and actual Democratic policies.
NEITHER wing of the single, informal, unified Party that runs the United States cares a tithe for your values or your vote.
Congress has a 10% approval rate and a 90% re-election rate of incumbents. That tells you how little they care for votes or values.
Both wings of the Party are dedicated to increasing their own power, and nothing but. They use slightly different tactics to do it--the Republicans pushing the "America the terrified" button and the Democrats pushing the "America the poor and stupid" button, but in both cases the Party is trying to sell you protection from phony threats, while taking your freedom left and right.
Re:It's about goddamn time (Score:2, Insightful)
I think you already are when people are put in prison for drug use.
Re:Decriminalization in Light of the Drug War (Score:1, Insightful)
"Flamebait"
Thanks for proving my point. :)
Strat
That post was correctly modded flamebait, though troll wouldn't have been far off as well. It seemed to start in such a way that could have been constructive criticism, but instead turned into an us and them diatribe, then slumped into a Nixon-esque rant about some kind of imaginary silent majority.
Re:Decriminalization in Light of the Drug War (Score:3, Insightful)
That's what happened after alcohol prohibition. You don't see ganng wars over alcohol any more, you don't have people going blind or dead from drinking wood alcohol like you did during prohibition, you don't see violence in the alcohol trade, and you don't see the bribery and corruption that is always present with victimless crimes.
The laws against drugs (and other victimless crimes as well) actually cause the problems they're supposed to solve.