Drugs and imprisonment

[Grenadier]

Moderator's Note:

This thread contains the posts split off from the Death Penalty Thread, and covers the relevant topic of drugs and imprisonment.

This is a good discussion, and I would like to keep it that way. Please stay on topic, and be courteous to each other.

-Ronald Shin
-Senior MT Moderator

 

[Empty Hands]

I guess what I was trying to get at was that I personally think that you're going to see more narc. related crime compared to crime to get booze.

Could be, I'm not sure. I suppose it would depend on relative price, and severity of the addiction. Alcohol is cheap, but the addiction is severe. I'm not sure how that would stack up against cocaine or meth, one which is expensive and one cheap.

Someone asking for money on the street...yes, panhandling is a crime, however, compared to holding a gun to someone asking for money and just asking as they walk by are two different things IMO.

No, that's not what I was getting at. I'm was just saying that someone could get the money for cheap booze by panhandling, so why bother with robbery if booze is their only goal?

 

[Empty Hands]

Anyone who says drug use only hurts the user, just doesn't know what they are talking about.

The bare fact of using drugs by itself harms no one but the user. You or my friend or my parents are not harmed by me sparking a doob or drinking a beer once a week to relax. Behavior resulting from addiction is something else. For one, most drug users never get addicted, and can control their use, just like I can control my use of alcohol once a week or two. As for the addiction itself, people with addictive physiology can become addicted to many things. Food. Porn. Collecting Hello Kitty Figurines. The potential for addiction then is no argument for making something illegal. No more so than the potential that someone will misuse a firearm to shoot up a mall means that all users of firearms are harming others and should be banned.

 

[Doc_Jude]

OR...let all the non-violent small quantity drug possession offenders out of prison, thus freeing up a huge amount of space for the violent offenders. You know, the ones being released early on parole so we have room for Chad, your pothead roommate.

YES.

 

[Doc_Jude]

His exploits have cost my aunt and uncle hundreds of thousands of dollars and you say drugs harm none but those that use?

So, does he steal from them to support his "weed habit"? Or, are they enablers? I don't get it. Also, he must be the exception to the rule. I know of NO ONE that behaves like this when dealing with Marijuana.

 

[Doc_Jude]

True. Additionally, whether something is legal or not, people (those who use it) will never get rid of that craving. Therefore, if weed was legal, its not going to be free. So you will still have people commit narcotics related crimes.

Prices are high due to risk on the part of the seller. Legalizing drugs lowers prices (not to mention putting all of the drug-selling gangs out of business & emptying our prisons of both drug sellers and drug users). Employers not demanding urinalysis will motivate drug users to retain employment. Studies done in other countries show this can be successful, even with stronger drugs such as heroin.

 

[grydth]

The bare fact of using drugs by itself harms no one but the user. You or my friend or my parents are not harmed by me sparking a doob or drinking a beer once a week to relax. Behavior resulting from addiction is something else. For one, most drug users never get addicted, and can control their use, just like I can control my use of alcohol once a week or two. As for the addiction itself, people with addictive physiology can become addicted to many things. Food. Porn. Collecting Hello Kitty Figurines. The potential for addiction then is no argument for making something illegal. No more so than the potential that someone will misuse a firearm to shoot up a mall means that all users of firearms are harming others and should be banned.

If you keep this up, I am going to try and convince Forum Admin to change your cyber nom de plume from "Empty Hands" to "Empty Jails":lol:

Seriously, though, the issue is more complex than its made out to be. I'd say you are correct, as a matter of physical and social effect, in asserting there's not much difference between having a couple drinks and smoking a joint.

So are you asserting drugs should be decriminalized?

But wait.... you're also correct about addictive physiologies. As many become drunks, many become addicts. Even pot, which isn't physically addictive, can become psychologically addictive.... many just smoke themselves into stupors, day after day. It's hard to conclude that our society is bettered with more addicts. Ask the Chinese what opium dens did for them. take a stroll through Amsterdam.

Speaking of "drugs" is oversimplifying.... there are many and they vary vastly in effects. Would you advocate decriminalizing hallucunogens like LSD? Meth? Heroin?

Then there are the after effects..... do you want drivers out there after some hashish? How about drug sales to kids?

 

[Doc_Jude]

Speaking of "drugs" is oversimplifying.... there are many and they vary vastly in effects. Would you advocate decriminalizing hallucunogens like LSD? Meth? Heroin?

Then there are the after effects..... do you want drivers out there after some hashish? How about drug sales to kids?

I would like to see Marijuana legal, simply because when compared to alcohol it's mother's milk. DUI/DWI rules still apply. If you commit a crime while under the influence, you do time for the crime, not for the drug use.

Personally, I'd like to see all drugs legalized eventually, with all of the rules of alcohol use applied, let 'em OD if they want to, if only to thin the gene pool out a lil' bit. Maybe a little harsh, but we gotta do something, y'know?

 

[Empty Hands]

If you keep this up, I am going to try and convince Forum Admin to change your cyber nom de plume from "Empty Hands" to "Empty Jails":lol:

Well, it would do wonders for the costs of incarceration! Lower taxes for all!

So are you asserting drugs should be decriminalized?

Yep.

It's hard to conclude that our society is bettered with more addicts.

No, addicts do little for and cause much harm to society and others around them. No doubt of that. I have it in my own family, as I'm sure most of us do.

The question then becomes one of balancing the harm caused by the addicts versus the harm of preventing them from becoming addicts (drugs anyways, there are many addictions). Prohibition was ended for a very good reason, and its not because we love alcoholics. The illegal status of drugs and our efforts to fight them are single handedly responsible for the rise of an enormous black market, with the gangs as primary evidence of it. Without the illegal drug market, gangs would be disaffected kids racing their cars and getting in fistfights, not massive criminal syndicates shooting each other and the bystanders.

Illegal drugs are also responsible for escalating costs to fight it, increased police powers, increasingly worrying seizure and similar laws, a vast increase in paramilitary style police raids with a great many "wrong door" deaths - the list goes on. All of that goes away the instant drugs are legalized. If you doubt it, ask yourself if there would have been an Al Capone without Prohibition. Of course not, there would have been no money in it for him.

All of these harms must be balanced against any harms that an increased number of addicts will cause. I would go with the addicts personally, at least they aren't shooting the rest of us like the Crips or the Bloods.

There is also the separate question apart from harms about whether the government should have the power to control what substances you ingest. Generally speaking I don't think they should.

Would you advocate decriminalizing hallucunogens like LSD? Meth? Heroin?

Yes. I can't think of any drug that does more harm in addiction than the harm caused by illicit production and our attempts to stop it. Legal meth means no more exploding meth labs for one thing. Once again, I know the effects of addiction are severe, especially for meth. But I believe the effects of trying to stop it are worse.

Then there are the after effects..... do you want drivers out there after some hashish? How about drug sales to kids?

No to both, of course. Making drugs legal does not mean we have to tolerate unsafe behaviors stemming from those drugs, or allow our children access before they are ready. We already have excellent protections like this in place for alcohol, and I don't see why DUMeth would be any different than DUI.

 

[Doc_Jude]

AGREED.

 

[Gordon Nore]

...No to both, of course. Making drugs legal does not mean we have to tolerate unsafe behaviors stemming from those drugs, or allow our children access before they are ready. We already have excellent protections like this in place for alcohol, and I don't see why DUMeth would be any different than DUI.

Agreed. Drug use and abuse is a health issue. We don't arrest people for having alcohol or for being alcoholics. We arrest them when they break the law in order to get alcohol or for what they do after they're drunk.

Decriminalize drugs.

 

[zDom]

Anyone who says drug use only hurts the user, just doesn't know what they are talking about. My cousin got started on weed at 12, his use has increased in potency and cost (financial, emotional, mental and physical) every year. Now at 37 he is unemployable at any job that requires things like trustworthiness, timeliness and attention to detail. His exploits have cost my aunt and uncle hundreds of thousands of dollars and you say drugs harm none but those that use?

This argument just isn't worth making. For every worthless pot addict you can point to, we can point to 10 homeless winos.

I have met hundreds of "closet smokers" who live productive lives in ALL walks of life — and I mean *all* from teachers, preachers, judges, cops.

Shall we go into the health effects of a lifetime of alcohol abuse compared the same period of time using marijuana?

And if you want to go into the "health cost to society" argument, then we can also begin discussing what is REALLY laying health care to waste:

Obesity.

Maybe we should make it a jailable offense to have a body composition of over 40 percent adipose (fat!) tissue. It sure offends me to see what should be a beautiful women riding around on a cart at Wal-Mart loading an early death from heart disease and/or diabetes into her basket.

Maybe we should address the REAL issue:

Money.

Money for the pharmaceutical companies that don't make any money researching and producing what can be grown in your backyard. They will continue to lobby against decriminalization. (How many people would no longer need Prozac, Xanax, etc., if allowed to roll one up and medicate their anxiety with a doob?)

Money for the alcohol manufacturers and distributors who don't want the competition. They will continue to lobby against decriminalization. (How many people who now drink to unwind would rather twist up a hooter but no longer want to place their job and liberty at jeopardy?)

Money for local governments (law enforcement, prosecutors) who get grant money such as the Department of Justice's High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) funding. (How many LEOs would prefer to work on violent and property crimes but have to work on drugs to keep the grant money flowing?)

Despite my John Locke'ian belief that it isn't government's business what an individual ingests, this oppression of a minority (are they really a minority? For how much longer?) by the majority is likely to continue.

I'm thinking they need to really consider redrawing the battle lines in this "war." How many otherwise law abiding pot smokers would be glad to jump sides in this war if they were to focus on meth and coke/crack? (How many pot smokers have seen their former smoking buddies destroy their lives in a spiral of increasing addiction to these two drugs alone?)

DARE to think for yourself instead of regurgitating anti-drug propaganda.

 

[grydth]

How many crimes are committed each year to buy the next bottle of Thunderbird? Honestly asking, I have no idea. Clearly though the same argument would apply to alcohol as it applies to other illegal drugs.

You've made a number of what I consider pretty strong points in the thread, to include that pot smoking is scarcely more (or possibly less) damaging than alcohol. Also, I like the general theory of limiting the government's interference with what we do and what we ingest. Finally, if other ways are better, jails should be less full.

Couple areas of disagreement, though. You ask in another post whether we'd have had Al Capone without Prohibition....... sorry, but yes we would. Organized crime has existed and flourished before/during/after Prohibition. Any notion that legalizing drugs will make the Mafia or the Crips vanish is well intentioned, but naive.

Also, drugs have a wide variety of affects, mostly deleterous and often incapacitating. A nation of addicts is scarcely an improvement over a police state - and could, ultimately, produce one. Certain drugs - hallucinogens like LSD or the opiates are almost always disabling. Is an opium den an improvement over a jail cell? Even if costs come way down, heroin addicts will not be able to pay the price. Those on so called harder drugs become both dysfunctional and addicted - so how else besides crime can they meet the addiction? Seems to me there's no net benefit to anyone in legalizing the harder stuff - they ultimately wind up in jail anyway, and addicted.

 

[Empty Hands]

You've made a number of what I consider pretty strong points in the thread, to include that pot smoking is scarcely more (or possibly less) damaging than alcohol. Also, I like the general theory of limiting the government's interference with what we do and what we ingest. Finally, if other ways are better, jails should be less full.

Thanks!

You ask in another post whether we'd have had Al Capone without Prohibition....... sorry, but yes we would. Organized crime has existed and flourished before/during/after Prohibition. Any notion that legalizing drugs will make the Mafia or the Crips vanish is well intentioned, but naive.

Yes we have always had organized crime, but Capone built his empire on illegal alcohol. Maybe he could have built another empire on something different, but I doubt it, since the players were already well established in other markets. Prohibition created a huge, untapped market overnight.

As for the Crips and Bloods, the reason they even exist is to sell drugs. Considering their location and lifestyle, it is pretty much the only market they can exploit. It's not like they can suddenly start smuggling in immigrants from China or engage in trafficking in Eastern European sex slaves, those markets are already established, and the members of most inner city gangs don't have the means or knowledge to expand into those markets.

Sure, there may still be residual organizations calling themselves Crips or Bloods still around. However, they will be much smaller, and their motivation for killing each other will be much less. Remember, we have had street gangs for hundreds of years, and it was only after the rise of the illegal drug market that those gangs started a war.

Also, drugs have a wide variety of affects, mostly deleterous and often incapacitating. A nation of addicts is scarcely an improvement over a police state - and could, ultimately, produce one. Certain drugs - hallucinogens like LSD or the opiates are almost always disabling. Is an opium den an improvement over a jail cell? Even if costs come way down, heroin addicts will not be able to pay the price. Those on so called harder drugs become both dysfunctional and addicted - so how else besides crime can they meet the addiction? Seems to me there's no net benefit to anyone in legalizing the harder stuff - they ultimately wind up in jail anyway, and addicted.

I take your points well. I have already said that I don't think addicts do anyone any good. It is merely that the cost of trying to prevent people from becoming addicts is worse than the cure. We also have the long experience of a few legal drugs that cause addiction to guide us here. Recovery rates from alcohol addiction are actually quite a bit less than recovery rate from drugs like heroin. To be sure, part of the reason for that is the ease of acquiring and social approval of alcohol. Nonetheless, I don't think we have a large number of alcoholics committing crimes to get their next hit. Thus, I can't think we would have all that many crack heads committing the same crimes if it were legal. An addiction is an addiction after all.

 

[grydth]

Well, "addiction is an addiction" is somewhat oversimplefying.

Generally, with moderate amounts of pot or alcohol, people can carry on with a productive life. For most, computer games are more addictive.

But some substances, the narcotics, produce intense physical addictions. While the occasional pot smoker or social drinker can carry on a normal existence, these folks almost never can. Then there's the hallucinogens, which can revisit the user later on. These must not be allowed.

I also think many underestimate the drive, intelligence - and yes, badness - of gangsters. No single thing - be it ending Prohibition or decriminalizing drugs - will rid us of these guys. They will find something else and muscle in on it.

 

[Empty Hands]

But some substances, the narcotics, produce intense physical addictions. While the occasional pot smoker or social drinker can carry on a normal existence, these folks almost never can.

This, while a common myth, just isn't true. For instance, with cocaine, in 2002 the percentage of adults aged 18-25 who had ever used cocaine was 15.4%. Yet, the percentage of admitted addicts was 0.1% in 1999. As for the narcotics, they are the most commonly prescribed painkillers in medicine. Clearly, occasional use isn't causing addiction there.

Then there's the hallucinogens, which can revisit the user later on. These must not be allowed.

Why not? Thousands of college students use shrooms every year, for instance, but I haven't heard of any hallucinogen related crimes or addictions from them. Personally, I would try LSD long before I would try meth.

I also think many underestimate the drive, intelligence - and yes, badness - of gangsters. No single thing - be it ending Prohibition or decriminalizing drugs - will rid us of these guys. They will find something else and muscle in on it.

Some of them? Yes. All of them? No. We will reduce their numbers by taking away their business. How could it not? The money is the motivation. The importance of established players is key here. If the market will support a thousand gangsters (lets say) the sudden introduction of 10,000 out of work drug dealers will crater the profit, and thus the number of gangsters trying to make money that way. Criminals aren't idiots. They aren't going to do something that doesn't reward them at all.

Established infrastructure is also key. Out of work inner city drug dealers don't have the contacts and infrastructure to muscle in on the Eastern European trafficking trade, for instance. How is Timmy the Gangster from inner city Detroit going to arrange trafficking from Eastern Europe when Dmitri the gangster already speaks the language and has friends and acquaintances there?

No, the markets are finite and will only support a finite number of players. Who knows, maybe the inner city kids will aspire to another life once the drug gangs have been taken away as a viable living.

 

[grydth]

Okay, now I know MT isn't a peer reviewed journal and the rules of evidnce don't apply here, etc... but that's some dangerously bad science in the first paragraph there, emptyhands.

You are mixing statistics from 2 different years (and likely different sources), relying on subjective reports and admissions - without defining how the term was used. Finally, you are generalizing one illicit drug to others..... never mind debating me here, bad science will get you in trouble with my wife. You do not want that:lol:

I also would not make a blanket statement about prescription drugs..... there has been significant concern over addiction and misuse of those, and about people getting hooked on them.

Personally, I wouldn't want anything to do with LSD or Meth.

Organized crime didn't start with or go away with Prohibition..... it will not fade with the war on drugs, either.

 

[Empty Hands]

You are mixing statistics from 2 different years (and likely different sources), relying on subjective reports and admissions - without defining how the term was used. Finally, you are generalizing one illicit drug to others..... never mind debating me here, bad science will get you in trouble with my wife. You do not want that:lol:

Come on, do you really believe that the drug admissions (those admitted to treatment programs) was vastly different between 1999 and 2002? Or that use profiles would change so drastically in three years? The data are good enough to make the quick comparison that of those who try drugs, only a few become addicts. Cocaine was only one example true, but do you really think cocaine can be used freely while all the other drugs will addict you no matter what?

As for subjectivity, admissions are not subjective. Use studies can be subjective if people lie or misunderstand the questions, but social science has been dealing with these problems successfully for many years. It isn't science to say that everything must be perfectly objective and exact with perfectly matching points and definitions at every intersection before a conclusion can be drawn. While ideal, most science just can't be done this way, if it was, my thesis would have been done a long time ago.

I also would not make a blanket statement about prescription drugs..... there has been significant concern over addiction and misuse of those, and about people getting hooked on them.

Yes...a small fraction of them. Morphine is prescribed to millions of people every year for pain control, both acute and chronic. Needless to say, we don't have millions of narcotics addicts jamming up the system.

Organized crime didn't start with or go away with Prohibition..... it will not fade with the war on drugs, either.

I never said all organized crime will go away. I said the drug gangs will go away. How could they not, once the money vanishes? How many gangsters deal in bathtub gin these days?

 

[Doc_Jude]

Yes we have always had organized crime, but Capone built his empire on illegal alcohol. Maybe he could have built another empire on something different, but I doubt it, since the players were already well established in other markets. Prohibition created a huge, untapped market overnight.

As for the Crips and Bloods, the reason they even exist is to sell drugs. Considering their location and lifestyle, it is pretty much the only market they can exploit. It's not like they can suddenly start smuggling in immigrants from China or engage in trafficking in Eastern European sex slaves, those markets are already established, and the members of most inner city gangs don't have the means or knowledge to expand into those markets.

Sure, there may still be residual organizations calling themselves Crips or Bloods still around. However, they will be much smaller, and their motivation for killing each other will be much less. Remember, we have had street gangs for hundreds of years, and it was only after the rise of the illegal drug market that those gangs started a war.

You beat me to it, on all points. Sir, you are a gentleman and a scholar!

 

[grydth]

Do I really believe that mixing data from different studies in different years is scientifically flawed and potentially unreliable? Yes, I do.

Do I trust admissions as a reliable criteria of assessing addiction? No, I do not. As singer Amy Winehouse both musically and realty put it," Try to make me go to rehab, I say NO,NO, NO".... Indeed.

Do I believe the opiates, heroin can be used as "freely" as cocaine? I know that's not the case.

Do I believe that gangs faced with drug legalization will go back to those day jobs at Arby's and Walmart? I do not, as it has not happened in the past.