We have a massive prison population in the United States. It really hurts our economy. We shouldn't be sending drug dealers/ users to prison. Another good idea is we common folk not breaking the law.

Ranciduncle I would like your idea on what to do with drug dealers? Give them a slap on the hand and tell them not to do that anymore? Let them deal to our kids?

Why not? Dealing drugs harms only those who make the choice to do the drug. Why should they be punished for their choice?

Aside from which, the obvious way to reduce prison population is to get rid of mandatory drug sentencing (if we cant play in a fantasy world where there were serious reforms). Mandatory drug sentencing puts many dealers, users and those caught with drugs in jail for a longer amount of time than necessary. While rapists and murderers get out in less time.

True Story (although this doesnt have anything to with actual drug sentencing, I do believe it opens a window to how the process works):

A few years ago I used to run with a crowd that did and sold methamphetamine. Four of them lived in a house and the house was raided. Three of them got out on cheap bail because it was their first offense. The fourth persons bail was set at $50,000 because he had previous charges against him (and he had walked out on bail before). We had to find some way to come up with 10% of this, if we wanted him out on bond. While talking to the bondsman, he said he had another client that was in jail for murder and her bail happened to be 500 dollars. No kidding. Whos the bigger risk?

This is unfortunately dead wrong. Drug users also cause damage to their families and communities. If drug use only affected drug users it wouldn't be a big deal, but as we all know,drug users come into contact with others. That contact is often criminal in nature. Not to mention the affect of drug-addict parents on their children. The damage caused by drug use shouldn't be overlooked just because prisons are crowded.

What about alcohol you may ask, that's problem too. I see no reason to add more. Besides, drugs are much more likely to have permanent mental consequences, which are horrifying to see (to put it lightly).

I looked at your first paragraph and substituted the work "gambler" in place of "drug" and read it in the context that gambling was illegal. I also read it substituting the word "alcohol" in place of "drug" with context of alcohol being illegal. All three ways the logic is the same. This could be an argument to make drugs legal or to make alcohol or gambling illegal ?

I am not certain your contention that alcohol is less likely than other drugs to cause permanent mental disease is correct. I have certainly seen my share of people mentally damaged by alcohol. It is a known fact that alcohol kills nervous tissue. Maybe someone with knowledge on health reasearch could clear this up one way or the other ?

Perhaps this is unique to my personal expirience but I have seen no one with permanant mental damage from alcohol, I have seen a number of people with permanent mental damage from drug use. Although gambling and alcohol cause their share of problems...

1. Gambling (possibly because of it's limited availability) does not compare to the drug problem in terms of effect.

2. Even disregarding the permanent mental damage issue, America's communities have quite enough addiction problems, there is no reason to add more, even fairness reaches its limit.

Some ideas:

Turn prisons and jails into work camps. Then we could recover some of our costs, the prisoners could earn some money, we could enhance our economy, prisoner dependents could be partially supported, and prisoners could develop job skills they could use on the outside which would lower recidivism.

Talk about win, win, win, win, win.

Get rid of 3 strikes for anything other than violent fellonies. I don't want to pay to keep some young person in for the rest of his natural life for stealing a pizza slice.

Change the jury system. Less jurors and they must pass some minimal legal test to serve on a jury. Some of the decisions are appalling.

On the drug front we should stop the advertising of alcohol and cigarettes and educate kids in the schools as to the consequences of drug use, legal or illegal.

Kids should have a lot of post school activities available to keep them positively focused.

Serious sex education would be a good idea to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Basically concentrate on the source of the problems and the ultimate prison population will drop.

Why put someone in jail for possesion or dealing? Those two things harm no one. Sure, drug users are bad parents and that is something that should be dealt with. If you are negligent to your child you should go to jail, but if you are in possesion of some cocaine, you should not go to jail. If you steal because you need to feed your habit you should go to jail, but if your habit is fed because you have a normal steady job, whos business is it what you do with your money?

As for turning prison into work camps...I am appalled at the idea. Its just like a sweat shop, and workers are exploited. I wouldnt be so against the idea if prison workers made at least minimum wage and werent abused by the system.
http://www.parascope.com/articles/0197/prison.htm



A really informative website on prison labor:
http://www.prisonactivist.org/crisis/labor...doing-time.html

I think that education and therapy are what prisoners need to return to society, not job skills.

I agree and I think my post at least implied that.




How are they supposed to survive on the outside? And what gives you the idea that earning money and learning job skills is not educational and therapeutic?

I would like to see the drug problem handled in a more medical fashion but I also understand that, for instance, the crack phenomenom came in and devastated poor communities and it was to a great degree this sudden escalation of the problem that resulted in a lot of the draconian antidrug laws that followed. You'll notice that it is not minority legislators representing poor districts that are leading the fight to decriminalize drug laws.

Certainly, something like marijuana should probably be reduced to a misdemeaner offense.

Kimpossible,
I am not talking about possessing drugs. I am talking about hard core dealers. Possessing means you intend to use it. Be that right or wrong. Dealing you are selling to "ALL". and that unfortunatley leads to kids using drugs. What about the Mother who is on crack when she is pregnant? If you can hold a job to support yourself and use drugs that is ok? Those people with the drug habit wouldn't be where they are if dealers were taken off the streets. And that means they go to Jail. Do not pass go! Do not get paid CRAP!

Apparently you don't mind supporting recidivists at $25,000 a year and having to pay additional to help their dependents who the prisoners can't contribute to because they are not performing useful work for which they're paid reasonably. Nor can they contribute to their room and board which I think they should, if only to get them use to what their responsibilities will be on the outside.

Momof3, its not the dealers fault, entirely. They are supplying the demand. Its the users choice to do drugs, why should a dealer be punished for selling something? If all drugs were legal, we wouldnt have this problem (but I think that is for a different thread, so lets try not get into a debate on whether or not drugs should be legal.) And yes, if you can support yourself with a job, its nobodys business whether or not you are using drugs. I use drugs sometimes, but guess what? Im not an addict, I have an OK job and Im not stupid. Im not harming anyone but myself. Why should a dealer by punished for my decision?

Dingo, youre right. I wasnt thinking about having a reformed system for working, I was thinking of our current system, which I think is disgusting. Having some job skills obviously will benefit an inmate. As long as there was some strict regulation.

An interesting situation is developing in my neighboring county, El Paso, CO. Seems a new jail is needed. Seems a bond issue was turned down by voters in the last election. Seems the new jail will be built anyway through issuing a set of special bonds that don't need voter approval.

Seems that irrationality rules this county.

Regarding the legalization of drugs: if you are against this in order to protect your kids, should not driving private automobiles be made illegal? More kids are harmed and killed that way than through drug use.

Besides, other countries have gone the legalization route without having a meltdown of their societies.

Legalize and educate. That will reduce the prison population by, probably, half. Tax the products, thus raising extra revenue. Remove the mystery and criminal element in the transactions. Teach the kids that speed kills, crack addicts, and being stoned makes you stupid--but maybe not so much as being drunk. This depends on the drug in question.

This is of course a mute point as our society is dependant on automobiles and the possibility that the government could handle transportation to all locations is far-fetched at best (at the moment, anyway).

The fact is drug are the number one problem in many of America's communities. They don't need an extra burden that is sure to be brought on by legalization of drugs or relaxed enforcement. There must be more reasonable ways to lower the prison population than putting more of a burden on America's poorest communities.

kimpossible: you may be harming no one but yourself, but millions of drug users harm those around them. Prosecute them after they hurt someone? Sort of like prosecuting dunk drivers only after they harm someone...
an ounce of prevention

Exactly. Sorry, theres no point in punishing people for what they might do. If that were to happen, everyone would be in jail as a potential rapist, murderer, thief, etc.

And drunk drivers are actually sometimes punished when they are driving drunk, as they should be. But should they be punished because they are drunk? Of course not.

People who drink and drive don't get charged for drinking or being drunk. They are charged with drunk driving. hence DUI. And it is posted everywhere the tolerence of being under the influence. Kimpossible,
You stated in an earlier post that some parents who are on drugs are "bad parents" and should be punished if they are negligent to their children.Well guess what? They have a drug habit and guess who is giving them their drugs. DRUG DEALERS! Do you know a hard core addicted drug addict or a hard core alcoholic? Well I do. And it is a very sad situation. Not only for the addicts but their families and friends. You maybe only hurting yourself, but I agree with turnea an ounce of prevention.

Again, it is not the drug dealers fault that people are using drugs. Its a persons choice to use drugs, why not punish them for their choice, if they can not live a productive life? If they are living a productive life, it is still none of your business about what they do. It may seem impossible for you to comprehend, but there are plenty of people that use drugs and ARE NOT addicts. About 6% of users become junkies and addicts, why punish the other 94% by abolishing their freedom of choice? You will never change my mind about this.

And does NO ONE ever read what I post? Of course I know drug dealers, of course I know drug users, didnt I already speak of my experience with them? How their house got raided, and the differenes between bail? I know drugs harm people's lives, but I am not about to infringe on someone's choice to hurt their life. There are many other things that hurt people's lives, but are getting rid of them? No! Yes its a sad sick situation, Ive lost friends because they've chosen methamphetamine over me, but again, its their choice. If they would rather live that lifestyle, than I dont have to be friends with them. You cant change people.

Drugs are illegal right now, and there are MANY people in prison for the simple fact they used drugs. I dont think drug use would increase if we decriminalized drugs. People already know the dangers of using, and having drugs being illegal only makes it harder on society. If drugs were legal (or decriminalized) there wouldnt be people sitting in jail with mandatory drugs sentences (sometimes equaling YEARS for a first time non-violentoffense), crowding prisons. If we focused on rehab for those who are addicts (and not everyone who is caught selling or possesing drugs is an addict. As Ive already stated), instead of squandering time for them in jail, our problem would be reduced seriously. Why waste jail space on non-violent offenders, when there are those who kill, rape, steal, destroy property being let loose because the prisons are overcrowded? The answer is obvious.

Momof3: It seems to me that the extension of your statement is to prohibit alcohol and tobacco. After all, if the blame is on the suppliers, why not also target liquor producers and cigarette companies? I know people who have been drug addicts. I know alcoholics. It is very sad, I agree, but I don't think punishing drug dealers more is even close to the right answer. The truth is that humans have always and will always seek altered states of consciousness. The demand for drugs will never disappear, and as long as drugs are illegal the structure of supply and demand will be rife with violence and chaos. The very idea of a "war on drugs" is fundamentally unsupportable, because drug use cannot be stopped.

That said, back to the thread: I think the best way to reduce prison population is to deal sincerely with the problems of poverty, education, and opportunity. Let's look at the inner city drug/crime problem. In this country (the U.S.), we have instilled in kids everywhere the idea that capitalism and entrepreneurism is the key to success. The drug scene in the inner city is like a model of the way people perceive big business to work. When drug dealers are flush with cash and Mercedes, it certainly seems like a more viable alternative to working at McDonalds for minimum wage. There are risks involved, but that's part of business too.

I am not endorsing that system, but until we deal with the issues both surrounding and underlying it, punishing drug dealers and increasing the attack on users will never work. Because the demand is there, and the path is one which can net a person cash and power, there will ALWAYS be someone to step into the role, no matter how often it is vacated by imprisonment or even violent death.

Turnea: what "burden" do you perceive will be increased by legalization or relaxation of drug laws? I'm not sure I get where you're going with that. Addiction is a medical problem, whether it's alcohol, nicotine, or any addictive substance. They way I see it is that the biggest "burden" exists now, where the very illegality of the drug trade opens a whole market (a market which, again, will always exist) to violence and risk (drugs cut with arsenic, etc).

On the other side of this issue, I say you increase the punishment for endangering others, ie: drunk driving.

As for prevention, I'd prefer an ounce of good British Columbian green!

No, this is not a moot point. You simply don't want to explore your logic.

The thinking goes like this: We have a drug problem. If affects poor communities. Therefore, the problem would increase in poor communities because keeping drugs illegal keeps the problem under check.

OK, wrong. The problem is that trafficing drugs is the easiest way to make big bucks in poor communities. This problem is caused by keeping drugs illegal. If we legalized drugs, as other countries have, then the profit in drug trafficing goes away. Now, the problem becomes how do we convince people to avoid taking drugs? How do we handle addicted people?

I suggest we do this the same ways we handle dangerous drivers and alcoholics right now.

Your fears are based on the situation as it is now, and the situation as it is now stems directly from keeping drugs illegal.

Keeping drugs illegal makes as much sense as eliminating privately owned and driven vehicles. You have already admitted that doing this would be silly. What makes prohibition any less silly? About 10% of any population will have people who are prone to substance abuse. This has been determined since the 1960s, back when Nixon felt all his problems stemmed from the drug use of others. And so, from the paranoia of a single man, the war on drugs began. It grew and grew, and so did the problems associated with drugs.

Explain to me how this is a good thing, especially in light of what other countries have accomplished by legalization. Examples: Holland and Switzerland. There are more examples, but lunch is ready.

So do you sugget that drug use in poor communities will drop if drugs are legalized?
If so, why?

I do indeed suggest that. First of all, legalization would stem to a degree the violence and crime associated with the illegal drug trade.

Also, over the longer term, I think fewer people would take drugs because there would be less "pushing." There are all sorts of regulations covering the advertising of alcohol and cigarettes. It makes sense that these same restrictions would be applied to other drugs. Why does the dealer try and turn kids on to drugs? He needs more customers. He's already breaking the law, so why would he not seek every avenue to increase his profits? He can't put an ad in the paper. He must proselytize in order to make new customers. It's not like legalizing drugs would allow people to show up on school playgrounds with cartfuls of drugs.

Yes, violence associated with the drug trade may lessen, but this pales in comparison to the problem of drug use and addiction in poor communities. Specifically, addicted parents. This in my opinion is the number one problem in lower-income black communities. Kids with addicted parents have a much harder time becoming successful.


And of course alcohol and cigarette companies barely sell anything...
Cigarette and alcohol companies do just fine with "regulations." Children drink and smoke all the time. Why have the same situation with other drugs?

If we cut down our prison population we could treat people for addiction instead of punishing them. Maybe in those fun Gulags we are going to make the prisoners can grow pot so the government can make some real money. The government can't stop people from wanting drugs. If people want drugs they will get them. Why punish them?

Not exactly...

The goverment can't stop people from wanting to steal. Unless the government uses its powers to discorage theives by the means of punishments. People can be prevented from getting drugs to a large extent, if the drug war is fought properly, just like any other crime.

People will not be prevented from getting drugs. You may not realize how incredibly easy it is to get about any drug (with certain exceptions of "exotic" drugs). And the difference between trying to prevent stealing and trying to prevent drug use is that stealing infringes on the rights of others. Stealing is invading someone else's space, so to speak, and drug use (again) really hurts no one but the user (yes yes, it hurts families and friends too, but its indirect. Ultimately they are not the ones dealing with possible harm and addiction).



Isnt the number one problem in lower income black communities the fact that they are low income? And possible poorly educated? Do you have any sources to back this up? Are there any facts saying that being low income equates becoming a drug addict? Also, if its true, the only reason that a low income family suffers from addiction is because they can not maintain enough money to keep up their habit, while those who are rich and addicted can. Addiction is not just a phenomenon of the poor.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/librar...basicfax.htm#q1











more to come. This is a great website....

Are you telling me 59.6% of the population should be jailed, even if its for something like possession? Or for something like dealing, even though no one is hurt or killed?

OK, my two cents worth regarding less drug use by adults in poor communities if drugs were to be legalized:

No, I don't think legalization will lower drug use. I do think it will shift the focus of drug users to cheap, relatively available marijuana--and away from expensive, dangerous crack cocaine.

The thing that really reduces crime is a good economy. When people have good jobs and good futures, all crime and self-destructive behaviors reduce. I see improved, sustainable economic practices to be the much more important focus than keeping drugs illegal.

Of course, many mood-altering drugs are legal through prescriptions. That's another side of the story and another issue.

So back on subject: Legalization of currently illegal drugs will reduce the prison population by around half, and it won't result in more use, but it will shift emphasis away from seriously addicting and destructive substances.

Just personal observation as a black person who has lived in a low-income community (for a relatively shot amount of time) and has close relatives who still do live in low-income communities. I see the affects of drug use on a regular basis...