31–40 of 195 posts
Just legalise all drugs and let the free market decide. We could create innovative new substances which are safer and less socially damaging, compared to the plants and fermented liquids we happen to have stumbled upon millenia ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's easy to see how pistol whipping someone over a bad drug deal could be plead down to a non-violent possession/dealing offense because proving assault and battery is hard when the prosecution only has testimony and circumstantial evidence the prosecution's star witness is an addict with a mile long record. Possession is very easy to prove. A&B, DV, etc, etc are much harder to prosecute (and by "much" I mean "some…
The original charges are always shown in the judicial record even if they are later dropped from prosecution.
Both sides of the problem relate to each other. People plead from "real crimes" down to "petty crimes" but prosecutors know this so they charge people with "real crimes" that won't stick just to get better plea deals on petty crimes and pad their stats.
The #1 issue in the USA beyond simple conviction and incarceration is rehabilitation. At the federal level, where I have personal experience, it seems like it's entirely retribution instead of rehabilitation. I was in a federal prison camp and it is primarily an exercise in leisure. The entire day was composed of well.. nothing. If you like reading, fresh air, and exercise you're in luck. If you like alcohol, drugs,…
Tell me about it. Between my prison "stigma" and the discriminatory ageism that is very prevalent in the industry, and even though I have 30 years professional programming experience, I am currently finding it impossible to find any work.
Can someone please tell me...what am I supposed to do at age 55? Find a new "career"...doing what?
I know plenty of you reading this with your secure jobs and paychecks have done illegal things and not been caught...well what if you were?
I mean I hear all day all the "protections" that this group and that group are getting recognized for, and meanwhile all I want is an opportunity to work my ass off in the field that I have loved since I was a 13yo kid riding my bike to the local Radio Shack on weekends so I could literally sit-in the window display and program on the TRS-80 and save my "work" to a cassette drive.
But no...hiring me (or anyone else in my situation) would apparently pose such an existential threat to companies so in need of people with my exact talent stack that I can't even be considered once it's discovered I went to prison some 20 years ago.
I know this subject has been discussed ad nauseum here on HN, so I don't expect any new answers to my questions, but maybe a few of you with open ears and the ability to think outside the box when it comes to hiring could be a bit more understanding if a qualified candidate with past legal issues come thru your interview process.
And the root cause of the problem is as long as for-profit prisons exists, there is no incentive to free those non-violent criminals.
My understanding would be that freeing non-violent criminals would be a matter of legislation and the court system. The choice would not be up to the prison. But do you think the prisons influence the legislation (or, horrifically, the judicial system)?
To say that it's a the root cause is to say that for-profit prisons drive legislation on drugs, but I do not believe that is the root cause of that legislation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I agree with the fundamental, the is-ought divide, I think this paper is basically saying "based on a load of measurements that are obviously goals of our society, criminalisation of drug offences is acting against our own interests".
This is only a utilitarian ethical argument. If people approach from a deontological perspective, the measurements may not matter. Suggesting a policy prescription in the title of a scientific study puts the legitimacy of the study in complete question. The researchers must approach the question as one which can be falsifiable, else it's not science.
Does it?
> The researchers must approach the question as one which can be falsifiable, else it's not science.
Isn't that what this study was—they had a hypothesis which they wished to test: "We should do X." Then they did whatever they reported in their paper, and found that their hypothesis was supported by the evidence.