61–70 of 126 posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rat...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here is my understanding on why decriminalization of drugs is beneficial. First, legitimate competition from suppliers would drive down costs, forcing high risk/high reward illegal operations from other countries out of the market. How can a Mexican drug cartel compete against grand-ma and her backyard? Secondly, what is the violent side of drug activitey? Again my understanding is that it's mostly revolved around pr…
Some of the current drugs out there need to stay illegal. Not because they get you high, but because they are toxic. I do believe, if some form of decriminalization happens, we really need to up the penalty for crimes committed while under the influence. Maybe assume premeditation. I should point out I believe the same thing about alcohol. Killing someone while drunk should be considered premeditated.
Are you suggesting that in 100% of the cases where killing someone (and I assume this includes manslaughter) is premeditated?
Because if you are not, then it should not be considered premeditated. That's dishonest. Simply give the judge some additional window to affect sentencing for a set of crimes committed while intoxicated.
If you want to punish something more strongly because doing so would lead to beneficial behavior from citizens, then by all means do so. But call it what it is, don't hijack other unrelated factors for your own means.
Incarceration rates in the United States today, which are due largely to the anti-drug get-tough policies of the last 30 years, should alarm anyone who believes in the principles of liberty that this nation was founded on, IMO: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rat...
Edit: Given the downvotes, I'd love to have a discussion with someone who disagrees.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was arguing prosecuting dealers as opposed to users, because it's a massive waste of money to prosecute the latter (not that that stops us from doing it, with 3 million people in jail and growing). Entirely different argument. Regarding prosecuting black ones instead of white ones.. well we already do that, so I'd say the reality has surpassed both of us. However, as far as what I think should happen, then yes, I w…
"Regarding prosecuting black ones instead of white ones.. well we already do that, so I'd say the reality has surpassed both of us." After this statement, I can't really take you seriously. Do you have any proof beyond this statement? "However, as far as what I think should happen, then yes, I would differentiate between gang bangers who own corners, run protection rackets, etc and the dude in high school who sells a…
http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~oliver/RACIAL/RacialDisparities.htm (copious linkage and a good overview) http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~oliver/RACIAL/RacialDisparities.htm (very detailed analysis of sentencing disparities in particular)
I'm from Portugal. There's something important missing from the article which might be useful to explain why there were so many people using drugs in Portugal. Before 1975, the country was under a dictatorship and drug use was obviously low. Then there was a revolution and people were free to the outside world's culture. On the years following the revolution, young adults were pretty much amazed by all the things you…
I am also from Portugal. After reading your post, I was wondering whether we lived in the same country. I suspect I am from a generation younger than yours, which may explain a lot. According to your rationale, oppressive regimes lead to increased drug abuse. Well, Spain also had a dictatorship for decades. The entire "Eastern Europe" lived under Soviet oppression for decades, too. The USSR didn't have a sexual revol…
Does the findings in this article surprise anyone? No? Good. I'm not a hippy, but let's get over this b.s. "War on Drugs" and begin to use our common sense when dealing with social issues and impeding on natural rights.
While I strongly support your conclusion in this case, I'm infuriated every time I hear a call for a policy change based on "common sense". As far as I can tell, this is just a euphemism for "I am unable to articulate a rational basis for my position", or even "I refuse to let the actual evidence interfere with my position".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Drug violence is rarely about cartels vs cops -- more often it's cartels vs cartels and dealers vs dealers. Precisely the point: If the cartels come to intimidate grandma, she calls the police, because her operation is legal and the intimidation is not. The police, because her operation is legal, then go after the cartel and shut them down. Additionally, contract laws and theft/burglary laws and so on work in grand…
The police...then go after the cartel and shut them down. Hah, if it were that easy we wouldn't still be in this 'War on Drugs'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately common sense is often electoral suicide.
Isn't calling something "common sense" when it isn't the common belief kinda against the definition?
Is anyone else perplexed that the success metric for decriminalization is reduced drug use? I'd think reduced crime (esp organized), reduced prison populations, savings in prosecuting housing drug non-criminals, job increases from local production/distribution, and/or tax revenue increases would all be more interesting / relevant metrics. It sounds like Portugal took the path of "it's still illegal and bad, we're jus…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the customers are helping the prostitute feed herself, how is she a victim and how are they harming her? She would be worse off if not for the voluntary transaction. In fact, the government is actually harming the hungry prostitute by reducing demand for her services by criminalizing the customers.
You can't take the isolated circumstances of 'customer helps prostitute feed herself' and proclaim everything peachy, because the reality of the situation is that it goes beyond individual prostitutes, and involves a global dynamic of human trafficking, sexism, class discrimination, income inequality, media stereotypes, and more. It's easy to read some article and say, if A then B so therefore C (or not C, whatever,…
As for this "unless you have personal experience, you can't comment" argument, I call BS. That is nothing but an attempt to keep outside views out of the debate. Thanks to the powers of logic and reason, humans can draw all sorts of correct conclusions without personal experience. I've never experienced quantum mechanics, the inside of a computer chip, or plate tectonics, yet I can draw all sorts of correct conclusions about them. You are trying to tell me that I can't draw correct conclusions about a slightly different human experience?