The "War on Drugs"
-
Another post here raised issues of ethnic disparity in our nations prison system. Much of this can be directly traced to the "War on Drugs", which accounts for over 50% of the people currently incarcerated. Of that population, 27% are marijuana related crimes. Clearly it is well past time these laws were reviewed, and marijuana was decriminalized at the federal level. I personally don't smoke weed, it makes me paranoid and I want to eat everything that isn't nailed down. I know a fair number of people who do, they are all productive members of society and use it responsibly IE they don't drive while high.
This is an older piece, but still very much representative of how it looks. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/10/war-on-drugs-prisons-infographic_n_4914884.html
What are your opinions on this?
-
I support prosecuting people who commit crimes.
I don't do drugs and rarely drink.
That being said, I do think that pot should be decriminalized and treated like booze and cigarettes; taxed and regulated. Take it out of the hands of the criminals.
I'm extremely leary of HuffPo, as they are SJW freaks, but assuming their article is true, then blackivists and their cucks are liars about how many people are in prison for crack compared to coke.
-
I will agree HP is probably not the sentient of journalistic accuracy. The subject actually came up and dinner with my mate and some of his old friends from law school. One of them is a public defender, who was venting in general about an endless labyrinth of reasons he needed to get out and go back to the private sector. Poor dude sounded a bit overwhelmed, and more than a little burned out. According to him, the peripheral legal machine (lower courts,probation, parole) is more choked than the prison system.
As the discussion went on, as it always does - poverty is absolutely a factor and in many cases the cause of a "snow-ball" effect. This is to say quite often it happens that "simple" cases get complicated when that person fails to appear for probation, often because they can't afford it. That leads to additional court time, additional fines, a circus of escalation. He said right around the fourth time violating probation, the judge is tired of excuses and more often than not jail time will be the next step. These people are not exactly rocket scientists, this has become the norm for even the silliest of infractions.
I can think of better ways for my tax dollars to be spent.
I agree with you, decriminalizing and regulation. I also think there needs to be a complete overhaul to the legal system. We need to do a better job of choosing our battles.
-
Not a user myself. And I don't know much about the topic but I have somewhat confused idea about it.
One one hand I am for self-ownership.
But on the other hand I would like to see government banning tobacco.
So I would go with legalization if tobacco ban is part of the deal :).
If the decision with legalization ends up being bad then they should be able to reverse it.Growing for oneself should be legal by default.
But I am suspicious of large-scale production. -
I think it is absurd that anyone does things they know for a fact could/will kill them, tobacco got a free ride simply because it was such an enormous segment of the population at the time that was addicted and the magnitude of the economy that was driven by it. Greed and a careful hat dance with lawmakers along with a lot of dirty backroom deals kept the truth from the public for quite a long time. Then when the truth finally fought it's way to the surface, they STILL managed to cut a deal that not only absolved them from prosecution, but continue to murder at will so long as they kept their dirty work off of television.
The "deal" they made was even more unscrupulous in that it handed the crux of the price tag for future destruction back to the public by way of "tobacco tax", the proceeds of which was supposed to be spent pro-actively to "wind down" it's use, but are being used for everything but. I would love to know who really got rich on that little deal.
The big argument against weed has been and remains that there is "insufficient data" as to it's long term effects, which IMO is utter non-sense. It has been more than 50 years since it's use became pretty common here in the US, they have yet to produce any legitimate "dire consequence" for certain non as dire as alcohol or cigarettes. It's application in the medical world has already been noted, I don't understand the hold up other than good old school cronyism and lack of an established "order of business" to make it lucrative to the political machine.
The lack of movement suggests they have already done the math and are making far more money in the legal system from this than they can possibly make decriminalizing it. I can't think of a better explanation, why else would you continue to choke your legal system with such frivolous nonsense.
I'm a hell of a lot more concerned about the uptick in the use of Heroin, and the apparent total inability to stem the flow of it. At a time in our history when they can pretty much monitor what is going on in any given persons rectum, I am more than a little suspicious at the lack of progress, and it beginning to look to me like our own government is at some level holding the door opened through some "back channel" deal. I don't see another explanation.
-
Tobacco is currently being used for politics and not as a medical issue.
The AMA and BMA (I'm sure many others too) say that it's addictive, but there is no addiction to it.
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the UK counterpart, if they say it's an addiction then it has to be treated differently than we do at the moment.
I wrote to both the AMA and BMA about a decade ago to ask them why they claim it's addictive but there is no addiction to it. The reply from both basically just restated their position without clarifying why.
-
I had an older sibling who was by all definitions a hot mess. He died at 26 of a heroin over dose, after multiple trips to rehab. He was able to come off of heroin and alcohol several times over, and was never able to quit smoking. So for anyone to claim it is not addictive is utter rubbish. It is the idea that here is a substance that has not only been proven to cause cancer and death, but has proven to be a huge drain on the economy and yet they STILL enjoy a protected status as the first legal serial killer in history. I don't care how many coats of lipstick they put on that pig - it is still a pig.
Anyone with half a brain in a "blind test" of common sense, presented with the description of the known long term effects of smoking, and those of weed would hands down switch smoking to a criminal offense and weed to the "controlled" designation. Yet the world continues to turn it's head to the obvious. To be honest, it is stupid on that level that makes me fear for the human race. I suppose on some level it is death by "natural selection", but it does not say much for human kind.
As for the "war on drugs", I'd have to say in it's current state it is a complete and utter failure of the worst kind. The longer you look at it the more obvious it becomes it is more a license to steel for the government than it is an attempt to keep the public safe. Worse still the magnitude of the flow is a strong indication at some level there is government sponsorship involved. NOBODY with the resources available to the DEA could POSSIBLY suck that badly at getting a situation under control. If a private sector company was operating so dismally, they would have been out of business long ago.
-
Tobacco is currently being used for politics and not as a medical issue.
The AMA and BMA (I'm sure many others too) say that it's addictive, but there is no addiction to it.
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the UK counterpart, if they say it's an addiction then it has to be treated differently than we do at the moment.
I wrote to both the AMA and BMA about a decade ago to ask them why they claim it's addictive but there is no addiction to it. The reply from both basically just restated their position without clarifying why.
How many times in your life have you heard someone say, "I need a cigarette.
That's an addiction.
-
For anyone to make the claim cigarettes are not addictive they would have to ignore an incredible amount of evidence to the contrary. I have co-workers and friends who smoke, and will brave an element to satisfy their craving. These are not stupid people, and most have gone to some extraordinary lengths to quit. Yet for all we know about this, cigarettes remain legal and readily available.
At some point you have to look at the system and make the obvious observation - it is still serving interests that are not in keeping with reality. Next you have to ask why, followed by WHO is responsible. We jail drug dealers based on the assumption that what they sell COULD kill people, while big tobacco continues to deal a drug we KNOW for a FACT kills people. It is pretty glaringly obvious the prolific killer has used his deep pockets to grease all the right wheels. At what point do we as a people identify these shoddy wheels, remove them and replace them with wheels that work? How long will this silent killer enjoy protected status at our expense?
Personally, I would rather see the lobbyists, politicians and corporate architects for the continued use of tobacco behind bars, and let the pot dealers go.
