by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.



Americans, perhaps like all people, have a remarkable capacity for tuning out unpleasantries that do not directly affect them. I'm thinking here of wars on foreign lands, but also the astonishing fact that the United States has become the world's most jail-loving country, with well over 1 in 100 adults living as slaves in a prison. Building and managing prisons, and locking people up, have become major facets of government power in our time, and it is long past time for those who love liberty to start to care.

Before we get to the reasons why, look at the facts as reported by the New York Times. The U.S. leads the world in prisoner production. There are 2.3 million people behind bars. China, with four times as many people, has 1.6 million in prison. In terms of population, the US has 751 people in prison for every 100,000, while the closest competitor in this regard is Russia with 627. I'm struck by this figure: 531 in Cuba. The median global rate is 125.

What's amazing is that most of this imprisoning trend is recent, dating really from the 1980s, and most of the change is due to drug laws. From 1925 to 1975, the rate of imprisonment was stable at 110, lower than the international average, which is what you might expect in a country that purports to value freedom. But then it suddenly shot up in the 1980s. There were 30,000 people in jail for drugs in 1980, while today there are half a million.

Other factors include the criminalization of nearly everything these days, even passing bad checks or the pettiest of thefts. And judges are under all sorts of minimum sentencing requirements. Now, before we move to causes and answers, please consider what jail means. The people inside are slaves of the state. They are captured and held and regarded by their captors as nothing other than biological beings that take up space. The delivery of all services to them is contingent on the whims of their masters, who have no stake in the outcome at all.

Now, you might say that this is necessary for some people, but be aware that it is the ultimate assault on human dignity. They are "paying the price" for their actions, but no one is in a position to benefit from the price paid. They aren't working off debts or compensating victims or struggling to overcome anything. They are just "doing time," costing taxpayers almost $25,000 a year per person. That's all these people are to society: a cost, and they are treated as such.

And the communities in which they exist in these prisons consist of other un-valued people, and they become socialized into this mentality that is utterly contrary to every notion of civilization. Then there are the relentless threat and reality of violence, the unspeakable noise, the pervasiveness of every moral perversity. In short, prisons are Hell. It can be no wonder that they rehabilitate no one. As George Barnard Shaw said, "imprisonment is as irrevocable as death."

What's more, everything we know about government applies to this ultimate government program. It is expensive (states alone spend $44 billion on prisons every year), inefficient, brutal, and irrational. The modern prison system is also a relatively new phenomenon in history, one that is used to enforce political priorities (the drug war) rather than punish real crimes. It is also manipulated by political passions rather than a genuine concern for justice. The results of the drug war are not to reduce consumption but rather the opposite. Illegal drugs are now a $100 billion dollar industry in the US, while the drug war itself costs taxpayers $19 billion, even as the costs of running the justice system are skyrocketing (up 418% percent in 25 years).

People say that crime is down, so this must be working. Well, that depends on what you mean by crime. Drug use and distribution are associated with violence solely because they are illegal. They are crimes because the state says they are crimes, but they do not fit within the usual definition we find in the history of political philosophy, which centers on the violation of person or property. What's more, the "crime" of drug use and distribution hasn't really been kept down; it has only gone further underground. It's a major irony and commentary on the workability of prisons that drug markets are very active there.

Now to causes. Some social scientists give the predictable explanation that all this is due to the lack of a "social safety net" in the U.S. In the first place, the U.S. has had such a net for a hundred years, and yet these people seem not to have noticed, even though no such net is big enough for some people. Moreover, it is more likely the very presence of such a net � which creates a moral hazard so that people do not learn to be responsible for their own well-being � that contributes to criminal behavior (all else being equal).

There are those on all sides who attribute the increase to racial factors, given that the imprisoned population is disproportionately black and Hispanic, and noting the disparity in crime rates in such places as Minnesota with low levels of minority populations. But this factor too could be illusory, especially as regards drug use, since it is far more likely that a state system will catch and punish people with less influence and social standing than those whom the state regards as significant.

A more telling point comes to us from political analysts, who observe the politicization of judicial appointments in the United States. Judges run on their "tough on crime" records, or are appointed for them, and so have every incentive to lock people up more than justice truly demands.

One factor that hasn't been mentioned so far in the discussion is the lobbying power of the prison industry itself. The old rule is that if you subsidize something, you get more of it. And so it is with prisons and the prison-industrial complex. I've yet to find any viable figures on how large this industry is, but consider that it includes construction firms, managers of private prisons, wardens, food service providers, counselors, security services, and a hundred other kinds of companies to build and manage these miniature societies. What kind of political influence do they have? Speculation here, but it must be substantial.

As for public concern, remember that every law on the books, every regulation, every line in the government codebook, is ultimately enforced by prison. The jail cell is the symbol and ultimate end of statism itself. It would be nice if we thought of the interests of the prisoners in society and those that will become so. But even if you are not likely to be among them, consider the loss of privacy, the loss of liberty, the loss of independence, the loss of all that used to be considered truly American, in the course of the building of prison nation.

But won't crime go up if we abandon our prison system? Let Robert Ingersoll answer: "The world has been filled with prisons and dungeons, with chains and whips, with crosses and gibbets, with thumb-screws and racks, with hangmen and headsmen � and yet these frightful means and instrumentalities and crimes have accomplished little for the preservation of property or life. It is safe to say that governments have committed far more crimes than they have prevented. As long as society bows and cringes before the great thieves, there will be little ones enough to fill the jails."

This artical was in the NY Slimes! You should just ignore it.

Part of the problem is that prison is too easy on the criminals. They should break rocks 8 hours a day, eat soy loaf and have no access to entertainment.

Further more, after 3 violent felonies they should be locked away for good. Additional crimes and they should get the death penalty.

ConradCA++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jim Berry

The system has never solved anything and never will. This crowd of system loving fools will display proof after proof of exactly why. Take ConradCA's comments for example.

System lovers never learn, because they don't want to.

So you follow the same theory as the judge in Maine who gave a child molester 4 months in jail for raping a 4 year old kid over 2 years ?

And you believe the following:

1) Punishment never works.
2) Criminals are not evil. They are just ill or misunderstood or victims.
3) Society is to blame anyway.

Prison costs are high; the S spnds over $60 billion each year to house, feed and guard inmates. Some should be permanently locked up and left to rot, but there are others (drug addicts, etc.) who ned treatment, not prison.

Long sentences have not worked; we spend a lot of money that could be used for education and other services (e.g., transportation or debt pay-off) and we still have a high rate of crime. No answers here, but there must be a better way.

Ah, but there is an answer...........it's called PUNISHMENT.

We don't have that now, just incarceration......mass murderer Richard Speck's well publicized prison lifestyle comes quickly to mind.

When PUNISHMENT becomes swift, certain and onerous, crimes will fall off.

When it doesn't, crimes rise because there is no or little fear of PUNISHMENT.

What's the typical time from conviction & sentencing for a capital crime in a capital state until actual execution?

Maybe 20 years minimum? or longer?

Not exactly swift and certain PUNISHMENT.

And while on the subject........re: cruel & unusual PUNISHMENT;

Let's go back to hanging or firing squad.........both were in frequent use at the time the Constitution was written, so by default, neither can rightly be called either cruel or unusual.

MM

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Your not going to get the courts, to stand up to punishment. Such things as chain gangs etc. won't even work in county jails.

I know of three sheriff's who tried it, in this state in the mid 90's. The lawsuits were filed within the first week and the sheriff's was told to back down by their county commissioners due to the cost of defending the lawsuits etc. The chain gangs who's jobs were cutting brush etc. were disbanded and never attempted again.

This was just a county jail, you try it in a prison that has access to a legal aid and other legal resources, it won't fly either.

I've seen people who talked tough on crime & punishment, till we nabbed their familymembers, then it was the finest attorney money could afford and lets make a deal.

Does the Montana State Prison System or any county jail in Montana practice punishment or hard labor or chain gangs etc. ??

Sorry kids but being locked up is punishment no matter how you slice it.

Punishment works to a degree but more punishment beyond that is a waste of time. It's like hitting a dog for doing something wrong. Hit them enough to teach them and it's training. Hitting them more than that doesn't make them any better....the effect only goes so far.

Drug laws are a good example. Look at our incarceration rate for drug crimes and then look at the same rate, per capita, in Canada. Their rates of locking folks up are a lot lower so their costs are lower as well. There isn't a nickel's worth of difference in the drug use or sales rates on the street between the two countries. All this locking up dopers is doing is costing money and having ZERO desired effect.

Another thing to look at...is it possible for most of the people we release after their sentence is up to even get a job? Most of them can't read and have no skills to even fill out a job application. You can beat them until their skin falls off and they'll still be unemployable. Even if you doubled their sentence they'd still be unemployable because they won't know one iota more when they do get out.

So it feels all manly and tough to say, "Punishment is the key" but if you look at it logically it's not. While they're in prison they should be forced or otherwise motivated to learn to read, do math, and gain some kind of job skills. That way when they are released they at least have a chance to get a real job and stay out of prison.

Of course I'm talking about garden variety criminals like robbers, drug dealers, burglars, etc. For sex crimes like rape, pedophila or child molestation it's a whole different enchilada because those are a whole different kind of offense committed for a whole different set of reasons.

I pray to God that neither you nor any of your loved ones ever, either justly or unjustly, find yourselves in prison. As the saying goes, "There but for the grace of God go I."

And soy loaf might be a welcome change from what some of the inmates eat. I have eaten prison food. I am far from a picky eater, but when I saw hot dogs in three shades of gray, it turned my stomach. And one of the women said to me, "Gee, when you ladies from the outside come in, they bring out the good food!"

Penny

Barak and I work actively with ex-felons on the outside to help them become productive members of society. You have no idea how many roadblocks are put up for ex-offenders to overcome. You must get a job, but have no transportation. There is nothing within walking distance of where you live. Take the bus... okay, but it takes you 2-3 hours to travel 10 miles because of waiting and changes. Can't get a car even if you had money, because they took away your driver's license when you were incarcerated. Now to get it back, you have to travel halfway across the state and pay a fine. No way to get across the state? Too bad. No money to pay the fine? Get a job. And it begins all over again. It is so often a real Catch-22.

As someone wisely opined, the Department of Corrections says it wants to see ex-offenders successfully reenter society; but if the success rate is too high, the DOC puts itself out of business. And it doesn't want to go out of business.

Even a normally optimistic person like myself could get really cynical really fast...

Penny

NY or CA or whatever. Sorry for the misprint. Growing up in the middle part, left coasts eventually blend together and become of no consequence.

Lame, worn out responses Conrad. Been shaking my head at these gov't programmed city mentality responses for 40 years.


1) Punishment never works.

Especially with profit from taxpayers available. Residual income like tampon sales and cable tv... Except more sinister.(Racketeering)

This of course is not to mention the ability to lord it over others, a point of utmost importance to insecure and feeble little minds with an inquenchable need to feel superior. Being a hired thug IS a very admirable occupation isn't it...


2) Criminals are not evil. They are just ill or misunderstood or victims.

Who would know? Process criminals and leave everybody else alone for a while and maybe we'll find out. It'll occur eventually to even the slowest that dumping real criminals back on the streets and feeding swarms of lawyers isn't working.


3) Society is to blame anyway.

If society is no further along than your kind of thinking, yeah! Damn strait!


I believe PJ O'Rourke put it very aptly when he said, "Authority has always attracted the lowest elements in the human race. All through history mankind has been bullied by scum. Those who lord it over their fellows and toss commands in every direction and would boss the grass in the meadow about which way to bend in the wind are the most depraved kind of prostitutes. They will submit to any indignity, perform any vile act, do anything to achieve power. Every government is a parliament of whores."

Far too many on this site are system loving uncivilized hacks. Who never learn.

http://www.mind-trek.com/articles/pct07a.htm

As for punishment; The death penalty does little to deter murder. People who take that action, by and large, are committing a crime of passion or fear. They are not thinking about punishment while contemplating this crime, if they contemplate the crime at all.
I don't think the death penalty for murderers is worth the trouble we go through to pursue it. We should just lock these guys up and throw the key away.
Where I think it would be extremely useful is for crimes of greed, such as drug trafficking. That is a crime one must think about prior to, and while committing. I suspect that if you were to start giving the death penalty to drug dealers, that trade would lose it's romance pretty quickly.
On one level, legalizing drugs seems the libertarian thing to do, but the fact remains that some of these drugs extract a terrible toll to the users. There are drugs out there that you don't just get over. Some are a death sentence themselves. But worse is the toll these drugs take on the people around the addict. We cannot allow this rot to be perpetrated on our citizens, crimes to support this scourge not withstanding.
Marijuana may be ok to legalize and regulate. Crack and crystal meth are pure evil.
Pedophiles seem uncurable, kill 'em.

I disagree on your take on the death penalty. It deters the person executed from doing it again. We don't execute run of the mill murderers. They have to be guilty of aggravated first degree murder. That means they premeditated it and usually killed more than one victim or kill one victim with the intent of covering up a crime. They are a whole different animal than a guy that shoots another dude in a fight or for having sex with his girlfriend or something.

Drugs are bad for you so don't use them. Pretty simple. Drug dealers aren't forcing anyone to use the stuff. Using, at least initially is a choice. Lots of habits are bad for you but making them all illegal is not how you run a nation conceived in liberty.

Please allow me to put in some good words for some of the wonderful Corrections Officers I know. Probably like law enforcement, for every scumbag working in a prison there is a hero. There are many who work inside the prisons who are truly caring and compassionate people, who do treat inmates like the human beings they are, and who allow others to keep their dignity.

Then there are those who get off on a power and control trip. This morning at the entrance building, the officer was making everyone turn their pockets inside out. If she found Kleenex in a pocket, she made a great show of pulling it out and throwing it on the floor. It's one thing to say that we can't take Kleenex inside (because she says so), but she doesn't have to throw it on the floor. You know, it takes all kinds.

And yes, when something like that happens, you can bet that we all are praying...

Penny

I don't mind the death penalty on murderers, just don't think it's worth the energy we expend. At this point it is cheaper to just lock em up like animals and never let them out. Problem solved.
I, and a large percentage of my generation, knew that drugs were bad for you, but did them anyway. We were young and did not always exercise great judgment. Most of us got over it. There are drugs out there now that you can't "just get over". Gross addiction comes easily, and even after huge effort may not be conquered. Why puy our young people through this.
Sure, there are certain "recreational" drugs that I wouldn't oppose legalizing. But others are an ill wind indeed.
If, as a dealer, you knowingly and wantonly cause this kind of evil and pain, you have proved that you don't have the compassion necessary to live among free people.

Using your logic on drug dealers then any guy that sells ammo or guns is responsible for how they are used too. I don't think you should expect to have it both ways. The responsibility for how and if something is used should always rest with the person that used it.

To put it another way. I can buy fertilizer at the feed store and diesel fuel at the gas station. Should either of those retailers be liable if I use them to make an AnFo bomb instead of fertilize my pasture and fuel my tractor?

Fortunately the great thing about the death penalty is that no innocents ever get convicted or put on death row.

http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=110

I used to be an advocate for the death penalty. Now I'm not so sure. There's the cost, and the problem of executing innocents. Life in prison works for me, and in the case of an error, it's reversible.

The drug war is simply unwinnable. Anyone who claims to understand capitalism must understand that if there is a demand, and there is money to be made someone will step up to meet the demand. Illegality just makes it expensive, puts money into the hands of dealers, and forces addicts to get the money they need however possible. Anyone know how many crimes are about addicts getting money for their next fix?

It's also funny to hear the same people who complain about the democratic nanny state go on about how drugs can ruin peoples lives and we need to protect them.

Here's a thought. Educate people about the dangers of drugs. If they are adults, let them make up their own mind, and pay the consequences for their own actions.

Remove the profit motive for dealers, and eliminate the need to resort to crimes to get you fix.

Treat it as a medical problem.

It is interesting to note that several countries with fairly liberal drug laws actually have lower drug usages rates than countries like the US where the laws are fairly strict.

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/thenethe.htm

Of course we all know how well the prohibition of alcohol worked in the US.

Sometimes to get true justice it costs more than the blue light sale version. I've got no problem with the cost of the death penalty when properly applied.

I agree with your views on the drug war. The problem is a lot of people can't view the problem dispassionately and let go of their preconcieved notions of what works.

Steely, I am aware of the contradiction, and I cannot argue with your logic.
I guess we just allow our youth to kill themselves with these poisons, and chalk it up to natural selection.
After all, there are people whose life is enhanced by crack.

Education and treatment is cheaper and more effective than prison. I didn't say to ignore the problem, just the use what works instead of what feels more like the retribution some people seem to need.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Are you stating the above based on opinion/views or from experience within the criminal justice field? Some of it is correct and some parts aren't, alot of it has to do with the state in question.

I know my state does alot to educate prisoners, if they don't have a GED/HS degree, they will get one in the pen, it's a requirement for parole. This many times starts in the county jails, if their going to be there more then a couple of months. This is ordered by the Judge if they want any chance of probation.


Regarding additional drug laws and increased enforcement of certain drugs, it has made a difference in manufacturing and availability of Meth.

After the passage of laws controlling Meth. making ingredients in this state, i can't speak for the rest of the US, it has made a major difference in availibility and labs present. Did it get rid of of all the Meth. NO, but certain counties in TN. aren't the #1 Meth. producing counties in the state, and in the USA, as they were before. That distinction has gone elsewhere as the citizens wanted.

This along with increased enforcement has forced the cookers to go elsewhere out of state or country to get their ingredients, and or Meth. They aren't cooking on every corner and backroad, and dumping their waste as before.

It's still out there but not at the overwhelming rate as before. It's made the citizens happy and they've seen the difference, us in LE have seen the difference also.

I don't believe that education, as a preventative measure, works. These people know full well what drugs do. That's why they take them! Kinda like sex ed. solving the teen pregnancy problem. Look at the gov't response to the drug problem - programs like D.A.R.E. - education. Teen sex - education. Both terribly ineffective. Heck, since we have a gun problem in schools, why aren't they pushing gun safety programs? The problem is, that these problems cannot be addressed by such an impersonal entity as the state. Family, and peer pressure from an early age is the best remedy. Parents have abdicated responsibility to schools, punishment to the state. Time to actually require your children to live good lives. Parents are NOT doing this. The kids are in charge. They stink at it. I have had the frustrating experience of trying to mentor several people who were in trouble with the law. Their fundamental problem is that they feel that whatever it is they want to do is okay. No matter what, you cannot get them to believe they MUST follow laws. They take it personally, feeling that the cop is out to get them because he doesn't like them. Never mind they are breaking a law. That's why recidivism is such a problem. The criminal simply does not feel he's doing anything wrong. Add a liberal dose of selfishness, and the person simply will not stop the bad behavior. Without strong family and church support and censure, there really is no one for the criminal to answer to, on a personal level. laws and gov't are too abstract for these folks to relate to.

Much of the typical response I imagined while reading the article. "The prisons are full because we're not keeping there long enough." "Prison is too easy." "Kill them all."

I won't even bother...it's hopeless. Give an opinion that differs from any of the above and you're labeled a "flaming liberal". Ignorance is bliss.

Y'all keep believing we can imprision enough people to eventually end the "war on drugs." What, now, just a mere 25 or so years in to it, people imprisoned at astonishing rates, and drug use is way down huh?

The article makes it seem like other countries are more humane that the US because they have fewer prisoners. Ever wonder why? Cause those countries kill most criminals and those fortunate enough to escape the death sentence usually die in prison.

I did mean to mention that. The countries they used to compare isn't apples to apples.

I agree with you Steely. This isn't about those who have committed a true criminal act--those folks deserve to do jail time.

The problem with our prisons is Congress/legislatures who have Criminalized Everything over the past few decades. And demonstrates one reason why I have become as distrustful of social-ist conservatives as I am of socialist liberals.......

Casey

Amen....

It should be pointed out that it is fairly common for a druggie to have a $100 a day habit. Quite a few use more. If you take the sheer volume of thefts of property, credit cards and prostitution that are also robberies, keeping a druggie in the slam is cheaper than leaving them on the streets. When someone is stealing all those guns, jewelry, computers,car parts, figure what THAT cost is. A singlr dime spot will have a 5,000 dollar a week drug business going and a city the size of mine has over 100 dime spots. The hidden costs?? It is easy to look at cost of locking them up but to avoid going into how much just one of the druggies has to steal in a year to finance their habit and they NEVER get a 1:1 ratio of return on their thefts. Costs???

Lew Rockwell and Prison Planet. Wow.

That anyone other than a hard core America hating libertarian would read that is astounding.

I totally agree with MontanaMan.

Today's New York Times has an article on the US prison population.

see: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/04/22/us/20080423_PRISON_GRAPHIC.html#

Good thing we have long sentences, I guess they have reduced criminal activity! Duhhh.

Are you referring to Middle Eastern countries under Sharia? Yeah, they probably do have lower numbers of prisoners. That's a great solution. Turn the US into Saudi Arabia.

BTW, how many European countries have the death penalty? I thank you'll find that most have lower incarceration rates, more liberal drug laws and lower rates of drug use.

You might want to do a little more research. Most European countries have figured out that education and treatment is less costly and more effective. Also, removing the profit motives pulls the rug out from under dealers.

The drug war isn't really about solving the drug problem. It's about controlling people. It's really no different that blaming crime on guns, rather than the real problems.

It's not a contradiction at all, Guns, ammunition, diesel fuel, fertilizer, hammers, Scotch and rope are all items of legal trade. Illegal drugs are well, illegal. If I were to sell guns or anything else illegally or misuse them I would expect a consequence. If illegal drugs become legal then you should not punish drug dealers unless the break the laws of distribution then you hammer them. Until then, hammer them.

When folks use illegal drugs they are knowingly breaking the law. Call it immoral laws if you would like but I can't imagine you can find someone who thought it was legal when they did it. You roll the dice and get caught everyone knows there's a price to be paid. Can't claim ignorance.

The whole issue of what the price is is independent of the legality or illegality of the activity.

"The testimonies of convicted murderers reveal that the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime."

Of course � the inevitable result of polls that record the testimonies of only those who haven't been deterred, with no input whatever from people who have been deterred.

If the current criminal justice system worked, the prisons would not be full and more needed every year. The system is flawed and more laws will not fix it.

When I was a young man I lived near Joliet, IL, home of Stateville prison. They had a truck farm, meat and dairy herds as well as poultry and hogs. They also had a tailor shop that made all the state uniforms for the prisons, state police and others that wore a state uniform, a shoe factory, laundry, bakery, kitchens and a furniture factory that made ALL the furniture for the state. All this was manned by prison labor that learned a trade of useful skill. THIS SYSTEM TURNED A PROFIT, year after year. Suddenly it was determined that this was cruel and unusual punishment and slavery and it was stopped. It now costs IL taxpayers over 65,000.00 a year to house EACH prisoner. Now the prisoners sit in lockdown, watching TV, exercising and using drugs. They no longer get a High School education along with the skills training either.

Go ahead, convince me the current system is better than the old one.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Most prisons today don't have the land or the resources to have farms and other types of industries. Their budgets are bare boned now, with only enough guards to maintain order.

To have all the additionals, farm/industries, it's going to require more people guarding the prisoners. The majority of those prisoners that were involved in the farming & industries were low escape risk /low violence prisoners.

The majority of prisoners now are gang affiliated and they have to be seperated, for the safety of the prisoners and the guards.

That was then, this is now, these prisoners are a totally different breed of what you saw in the 40's & 50's. Go to Stark,FL. and talk to FL. DOC, as to the difference in prisoners regarding the violence that is present.

When you state THEY, are you referring to prisoners in the state of IL. or all prisoners in general, when you comment on watching TV, exercising, drug usage. The regards to education programs, is again a state by state operation.

Criminals choose to steal/hurt/kill other people and that choice includes accepting the punishment they recieve. If they don't want to suffer and face difficulties then they should not commit crimes.

You seem to think that the majority of them are innocent and just victims of society. That is absurd! The vast majority are guilty and have commited many additional crimes that they got away with.

Clearly you have been conned by the criminals and have never been one of their victims.

Also, they are not "ex-felons" they are felons and will always be after the commit a felony.


If you can't do the time, dont commit the crime!

I don;t think anyone here believes the majority of prisoners are innocent or even victims of society.

The fact is that that we have created more laws and more crimes and then put a lot of people behind bars. Do you really think there are more criminals per capita than Russia, China, Korea etc? Or are there more laws.

There are a lot of criminals in prisons who are the result of zero tolerance and enhanced drug laws. In many states you can get more time for personal drug use - i.e. not selling, just using - that you can for murder.

How is society served by putting someone with a drug problem in person for 5 or 10 years at a cost of $25,000 per year?

We lock up 1% of our population, far more than any other civilized country, and yet we still have a much higher crime rate.

Basically, we have a large number of people in prison for rarely minor offenses that we are converting into career criminals.

The rate in Canada is 107 per 100 000. The most striking information for me in Tlee's article is the increase from 1975.

What's amazing is that most of this imprisoning trend is recent, dating really from the 1980s, and most of the change is due to drug laws. From 1925 to 1975, the rate of imprisonment was stable at 110, lower than the international average, which is what you might expect in a country that purports to value freedom. But then it suddenly shot up in the 1980s. There were 30,000 people in jail for drugs in 1980, while today there are half a million.

The war on drugs! It's working so well too. Don't you think?

The drug war is exactly the same as alcohol prohibition, and look how well that turned out. Both did nothing about the problem, but both created vast, well funded criminal enterprises. The one difference between the two was that we didn't imprison people for drinking bootleg whiskey - just the people who made and sold it.

When you can grow pot in a closet with lights, or make Meth in a suitcase, how are you going to reduce let alone end drug availability? Has restricting pseudo-ephedrine had any impact on drug availability?

If anything, drugs are more available now than they were 25 years ago.

The theory behind the criminal justice is great and most of the laws that are out there need to be on the books. Where the problem comes in is that 1) the judges are given an opinion about what the sentence is going to be. For example, the laws for possession aren't harsher than distribution, its that the judges are given leeway in what the sentences are. Add to that they users are poored than the distributors therefore can't afford representation. Next you have the problem of pleas. People who shouldn't get out of jail do because they get plead down to a lessor offense. This means there is very little fear of the criminal justice system therefore chances are higher that the person will reoffend. The list is endless, to tell you the truth, but this gives you a small idea about the problem with our criminal justice system

I recently attended a seminar put on by the Alabama Sentencing Commission. I was shocked to learn that our prison population is made up of 50% of people there serving time on drug possession cases or Felony DUI. Meanwhile, violent offenders, no matter what the sentence serve on average no more than 12 years, and often far less.

None of that makes any sense at all!

Once again, its down to plea bargaining. Its ridiculous what they do with cases. One state passed a law that if you were convicted of 3 violent felonies (such as drug distribution) you were automatically sentenced to life in prison. Guess what? After their 2nd conviction most offenders were plead down to misdemeanors and non-violent felonies!! Also, have to mention some of those that appear to be in jail for simple possession (which is considered the user category) are actually in for the more violent crime of distribution but they were plead down. I several individuals charged with Possession with intent to Distribute to be plead down to just possession, only to get out of jail and the same thing happen!

I disagree in part, places like Stateville still have all the land and shops, they now lay fallow. Also note in my post that those days the prison PAID FOR ITSELF and turned a modest PROFIT. That sounds pretty cost effective to me. I also think it would still work for many first time prisoners as well as long term sentence servers that adjust and like the extra freedom and opportunity to LEARN a trade or skill as well as earn a High School diploma. Not all them thar prisoners are incorrigible, especially first time offenders of non-violent crimes and even some drug offenses.

I am also familiar with CCI here in Charlotte County, FL and yes many are beyond help, but there are some salvageable souls even in this max security prison. I am in there on occasion with my St. Vincent de Paul ministry and the actors can't snow me, I spent too many years on the street to fall for the BS lines some use.

True enough that individual states differ in their resources, but that as well as chain gangs was the norm in the "old days" and the recidivism rates were much lower than they are today. Prisons today seem to be a graduate school for criminal behavior these days and havens for gang bangers & wannabe's that become gang bangers BECAUSE they have way too much unsupervised time on their hands IMHO.

I am not advocating chain gangs, but structured education in basic living skills and work skills will go a long way in helping many, and I also believe reducing the recidivism rates as well. There has been and always will be those that will return time after time for their anti-social behavior, many will not if given a start in the right direction before they T-totally F up their life.

That is just my .02 cents worth from the perspective of 67 years of life and some 49 or so of those aware of what goes on in the dark side of life. Yep, 49, I was a Military Policeman at 18 working the stockade max security section then moved on to civilian life as a Deputy Sheriff for the next 26 and am still associated with the Sheriff's Department I retired from through my Daughter and many friends still working there although most are now retired.

I am wondering of you are thinking of the Armed Career Criminal Act. 3 felonies of any kind, get caught with a gun and it's 15 years to life, no parole, no pleas bargain. That's a Federal statute.

Part of the problem is the truth in sentencing laws. They set specific sentences regardless. Ig a judge departs from the sentencing guidelines it's a big deal and requires reasons for doing so.

I thought that was what Judges were for - to set sentences based on the particular facts of the case. Now we have a zero tolerance, one size fits all mentality - at least with regard to drugs

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Those education projects are costly as are the farms & industries in start up costs. It's simply easier and cheaper to lock them up for 23 hours of the day, it's a sad fact of life, but it's the fact of life.

Are you willing to increase your state sales tax or other tax, to pay for new prisons and new prison systems? Most people are not willing to increase taxes to pay for, what many consider "feel good programs".

Not to be ugly, you mention your age at 67, i know counties in this state that the blue hairs are pissing & whining, as to why they have to support a school system, when they don't even have any kids in the schools. It's rough to get increased spending on education for children, let alone prisoners in state facilities.

I am sorry to say that the past is gone and it's not coming back. I know i don't have an answer and i know that we're not going to revolve back to the way it was in the 40's,50's, 60's. Most first time offenders unless it's very serious, do there time in either county jails or minimum security systems.

Many do their time in the county jails as the state pays the county to keep them, due to not having enough bed space in a state facility, it's cheaper for the state and the counties love the money, since it's more then what the county needs to house the prisoner, they see it as a profit.

It's stupid that we're locking people up for things like this but it plays to the fears of the soccer moms who've been convinced that all druggies are targeting their children and that every guy who's had two beers is going to run into their suburban. I'm far from a liberal, but it's out of control the rate at which we lock up people in this country. We even threw Martha Stewart in jail, for Christ's sake! For a nation of supposedly "free" people we sure do have a lot of laws aimed at controlling every facet of people's lives. The statistics speak for themselves, we're infatuated with throwing people in jail for the most trivial "crimes" and the politicians eat it up because they can claim they were tough on crime again. We're all about law and order and damn the consequences. Heck, look at this thread, half of the folks on here are crying about us not locking enough people up despite the fact that we jail far more than any other nation out there.

The problem with locking up non violent offenders is that you usually take a person who's a productive member of society and instantly turn him into a welfare case. If the guy spends a year in jail for a DUI then he may be the best computer programmer in the world but that prison record is going to show up on any employment background check and he's now unemployable. You've taken a guy who had a productive career and ruined his life, now the government's got to support him and he's lucky if he doesn't turn into a real crook because it's the only way left. If he wasn't a crook when he went into prison it's pretty much guaranteed he will be when he gets out.

Everybody's pet peeves shouldn't be the basis for a new law. We criminalize too much. We've got too many laws on the books now and as mentioned before no one could possibly make it through a day without breaking several of them. There's something wrong with that and it needs to be corrected, but it won't as long as some pandering politician can get the vote of the terrified masses by promising to get "tough on crime" by throwing some pothead into prison or busting some harmless middle age guy for DUI. Drunks and potheads are much safer for the politicians and police to screw with than real criminals. It makes their arrest statistics look good without doing a damn thing to reduce real crime.

Not sure how bright you are, but you don't communicate well in this medium.

So, obtainging a plea without a trial is a bad thing?



Uh, many states have "habitual offender sentencing laws". Drug distribution, in no way, is a "violent felony".



You got any proof at all of that?



No, if you're arrested for distribution, that's what you're in jail for. Again "distribution" isn't a "violent felony".



That's generally because they were over charged to begin with, or they can't prove the "intent". Nice to write such laws, much more difficult to prove that "possessor A" was just in possession, but "possessor B" had intent to distribute when there's no other facts other they they each possessed drugs.

I agree that the start up is expensive, but the only reason they were closed down in the first place was the liberal bleeding hearts of the mid sixties till present think it is "unfair" to "Make" these people do something constructive. They were and still are wrong, PERIOD. And I am oh so aware that we won't go back to the systems of 50-60 years ago, it is too late now and going back would not all be good. Yep if we could cherry pick that that was good and leave all that was bad, you betcha. All was not rosy then either, but lots of stuff WAS better. My only contention is it DID work and COULD work again if it could be done. I am not a blue hair BTW, I am still a redneck at heart and have never bitched about school taxes except what they do with them, and I PAID for my kids education in Parochial school and still help pay for all three of my grandsons. My choice, but still pay my property tax bill without protest every year. They do know my name at school board meetings as well! I have voted for tax increases for education programs and upgraded schools and just recently voted for a tax to support a new 48.7 million upgrade to our 7 year old and already overcrowded County jail. Unfortunately many of the retired "damnyankees" that have moved here vote against that stuff, instead voting for more municipal golf courses and parks. It is all a matter of priorities, theirs and the few like me.

But anyway, thank you for your considered responses and kindness to a "Dinosaur".

Have a great one Sir.

Hey Jim.....Nearly everyone knows our job better than us who actually do it. I just love stories that begin with, Well, I got this friend who...........or, I know this guy who........ Of course, they never set foot in the courtroom or are aware of the actual facts other than what they've been told by someone!

They should be in the cop's seat at a trial a few times. That would be a VERY educational experience indeed!

No doubt, Terry!!

Many of the inmates of the US penal system are many time recidivists they are not able to function on the outside, most have beeen wards of the state since adolecence. They are not Slaves they get paid for any work they do they also get free room and board and free medical care. The food they get is strictly monotored for nutritional value. It ain't like they get a bowl of rice once a day. I thend to agree that if anything they get to many privledges TV's heck a lot get law degrees while inside. Or other educational assets. But many still get out and are being indited for somthing with in six months. Some even sooner. I have talked to many ex cons who told me they felt more secure inside than outside.

I never seen many druggies (as in potheads) until I went to college. Most of them aren't illiterate, unexperienced, and unemployable--they are your lawyers, your dentists, or fixing your computers now--well a few of them are in jail to I suppose.

Couldn't agree more........see my earlier comment about "cruel & unusual punishment".

MM

Inevitably someone will post, that everyone they knew that used drugs, is now a brain surgeon, or a nuclear physicist, or the above lawyer, dentist etc., so therefore drugs must be a benefit. In fact drugs probably helped them become the successful people they are today!

Why don't we just encourage EVERYONE to use drugs, as they are benign and probably a very positive choice?

Hey, all drugs should be perfectly legal and even better free, because the war on drugs is lost!

Too often I hear the same rhetoric in schools today about not only drugs, but honesty. The current ethical standards, or, in keeping with this thread, let's call it the "war on dishonesty" is lost, so just accept the fact that everyone cheats, everyone lies, everyone steals at some level, so throw out all that krap about integrity.

I really fear for a world with ever lowering standards, where honor, principles, keeping promises, self discipline of body and mind, and squarely facing the consequences of your actions will be forever lost like the war on drugs.

I never said a thing about everybody does it so it must be OK, or judged anything about anyone else's ethics. I couldn't agree with you more about self discipline, but thought we were more moral as nation when the government did a better job of minding it's own business rather than the liberal approach of minding every one else's.

Jacques,

I couldn't agree with you more; that an moral/ethical people and less government would be fantastic.

The ethics detour was my own soapbox. I just hear the same defeatist reasoning about the war on drugs, used with school standards.

My kids attended a school, where they still had the rules of no drugs or alcohol during the sports season. The coach just told them at the first practice, the understood rule was, don't show up drunk or wasted for games. We even had one kid wreck his car while drunk, during basketball season, and no one even blinked or thought anything was wrong. A DUI was not a reason for school discipline or to stop playing sports. It still rankles!

Canada has MUCH lower rates of imprisonment, and no death penalty.

As a result, Canada is way worse off than the USA is,


... how?

Yep, every time some old boy climbs up on a stump and starts shaking his finger, sayin' we ought to do something about this or that, you'd be way better off holdin' your hand over your wallet and getting out of there before you buy into it. The ones that don't are causin' us to need more jails and they're sendin' ya the bill. Sure them rapists and murderer's need to be dealt with, but them potheads wasn't botherin' me none--Why they wanna send me the bill for roundin' 'em up? If I already knew better than to partake, what do I care? If I was one of 'em, I wouldn't want to hear about it either. Them junkies aren't stealing your stuff to buy drugs, they're stealing stuff to get a lot of money because illegal drugs are kept expensive by the laws that put your stuff at risk. But it's bad for them--yeah but so's bungie jumping and bull riding--so what. Bars are closin' up 'cause the fuzz is circlin' the parkin' lots all night and if you try to walk home, they'll bust you for that too. Kids are getting expelled for drawing pictures of guns, and some dudes I never met don't want me chewin' tobacco anymore either, so they're sin taxing me to death!!! They almost made shooting prairie dogs a crime here a week or two back. I don't think it's what them old boys that started the "Land of the Free" had in mind. Jails are big business! I'll bet the investors in them (the private kind anyway--the state ones are about business too, but in a sneakier way) are all for immigration too--I shouldn't be belly achin', I've been well paid to build a passel of 'em, but something smells rotten just the same--Don't worry none though, Obama's got a hankerin' to pass a bunch a more, new, and better laws--that'll fix everything up swell. TIC

I vote we put Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in charge of every prison in the country. There's a guy that knows how to run a prison. Humiliate them, make them pay for their stay, and work their asses off. If you make it "unpleasant" enough you won't have repeat offenders.

To all you bleeding heart PC liberals, if you want to give them anything more than that, then YOU PAY FOR IT, don't saddle the rest of us that don't give a [bleep]. Personally I'd like to bring back public hangings, so there's no use wasting your time and energy in trying to convince me otherwise.

Here's a little info on Sheriff Joe - http://www.mcso.org/index.php?a=GetModule&mn=Messages

No, I never said that and don't even think it. The vast majority are guilty of the crimes they have been sentenced for.


I have an idea... let's hate them and make it all but impossible for them to atone for their past. Let's keep them from jobs and decent housing, and block any access or attempt to become a productive citizen in society. Then we can sit around feeling superior and shake our heads over how bad they are. Yeah, that's the ticket. That will solve all our problems.

I'd like to write more, but I've got to get ready to leave for prison!

Penny

I have trouble understanding the justice of prison at all.

There are certainly the practicality issues that people have already pointed out: it's too expensive, it doesn't accomplish its stated objectives, and what it does accomplish is not exactly what most of its proponents envisioned.

But I would argue that not only is prison impractical, it's unjust--mostly unjust to the victims of crime.

There is, of course, the excellent argument against State intervention in mala prohibita--that is, victimless "crimes" like illegal drug use or prostitution or gun possession; but that argument has already been done to death on this site.

I'm mostly interested in the rationale, or lack of it, behind the State imprisoning people for mala in se, or crimes that actually hurt a victim, like assault or theft or rape or murder.

I think the root of some of the biggest problems is the fact that in criminal cases the State arrogates to itself the status of victim, and strips all influence from the actual victim. If Bill rapes Julie, the case isn't Julie v. Bill, but State of Xxx v. Bill. Instead of being said to owe a debt to Julie, Bill is said to owe a debt to society. And when he's convicted, Bill is said to pay this "debt to society" by charging society (including Julie), through his agent the State, dozens of thousands of dollars a year for room, board, protection, and enforced indolence.

There is not only no justice in this system: there's no sense in it.

In a just system, first of all, the State would not have plaintiff status in a rape case, because the State is in no way injured by a rape. To the contrary, as a matter of fact, on two points.

A. From a trending perspective, an increase in the number of rapes in a community stands a good chance of scaring the people into giving the State more power. In most cases, the State has an interest in increasing the number of rapes, not decreasing it, the way it would if it were a victim. The only case in which it doesn't is the case where the rate of rape is so high that increasing it stands a good chance of getting the State overthrown: but that's not very common. In the vast majority of locales, an increase in the rate of rape would result in a call for more police, more laws, and longer sentences.

B. If the State is to be involved in such a case at all, it should be as a co-defendant rather than as a plaintiff, seeing as how State laws very likely* prevented Julie from owning or carrying a gun with which she could otherwise have prevented the rape, and seeing as how it failed to defend her against the rape after implicitly taking upon itself the responsibility to do so by depriving her of the power to defend herself.

* I say "very likely" because as we all know, rapes are much less frequent where States do not guarantee rapists a field of unarmed victims. Therefore, if a woman is raped, it's likely she's under a State that does offer such guarantees.

Second, the debt would be owed to Julie, not to "society." "Society" would not be involved in the case at all, and Julie would directly benefit from Bill's payment of the debt, rather than having to pay him.

Third, Bill would get no free benefits for committing a rape. If he were to eat or sleep during the payment of his debt to Julie, he'd need to provide for room and board himself. If he were to be protected from Julie and her agents, he'd have to provide or hire that protection himself too.

The practicality issues with the prison system are certainly severe; but I think the justice issues are more pressing. After all, where's the profit in increasing the system's practicality and efficiency at committing injustice?

Lew Rockwell is right, once again.

Child molestation is an example of an actual crime, as classically understood. The problem is that the majority of folks in prison these days are not guilty of real crimes. Real crimes involve actual victims. Possession and personal use, purchase or sale of items or substances are not real crimes. They might be reasons to suspect an intention to commit a crime, and they might be evidence of a crime, such as the case of the person who declares, "I'm going to buy a gun today because I intend to murder that SOB who fired me." If the guy who fired him is then found shot, and it is discovered that he purchased a firearm the day before, that would be evidence, but the real crime is the actual victimization (the murder), not the purchase of the firearm, yet today lots of folks are in jail for merely purchasing (or possessing, or selling) a firearm, because society decided that in many cases the mere purchase, sale or possession is a crime. That is to say, the law presumes a criminal intent, and punishes that intent in advance of an actual crime. This is not part of our tradition. It's an alien concept that's crept into our system of justice. Only real crimes, like your example of child molestation, ought to be punished by the criminal justice system.

Well put Barak & TRH.

Possession and personal use, purchase or sale of items or substances are not real crimes
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Let me make sure I completely understand you before I respond further. Is it your position that a person distributing drugs, for money, to a person under 18 is not a real crime?

Short answer, Isaac. No, it's a financial transaction. The unfortunate part of it is that a minor is the buyer. Imaginie the situation reversed. i.e. a minor sells controlled substances to someone who's come of age. One can't help but perceive a different "crime" or list of "crimes". It's for sure the courts will handle the situation much differently.

Some of you all (no longer speaking to anyone specific) didn't read the link I posted.
Here it is again so those who choose to NOT learn can rethink their position.

http://www.mind-trek.com/articles/pct07a.htm


And here's one from a publication many of you are familiar with.

SHOTGUN NEWS
Vol. 50, Issue 33, 1996 -- 3rd issue of November

To the readers of Shotgun News:

...My columns concerning the "Drug War" in relation to gun control
have generated mountains of response from readers. The consensus is to
decriminalize drugs, let the chips fall where they may and obliterate the
drug dealer and crime in the process.

Mr. Populi's letter on the subject follows and we feel each and
every point he makes is well taken. We thank him for his permission to
publish this fine treatise on the subject and look forward to your input on
this timely debate.

Nancy Snell Swickard
Publisher


Ms. Nancy Snell Swickard -- Publisher
"Shotgun News"
P.O. Box 669, Hastings, Nebraska 68902

Dear Ms. Swickard,

I was very distressed to see the remark of one of your subscribers which
you quoted on page 8 of your October 1 issue. The support of the "Drug
War" by anyone who values the 2nd Amendment, and the rest of the Bill of
Rights, is the most dangerous error of thinking in the politics of the "gun
control" debate. This error is extremely widespread, although there have
been some recent signs that some Americans are seeing through the
propaganda of the Drug Warriors which affects all levels of our society.
Sadly, major players in the defense of the 2nd Amendment (like the NRA)
show no signs of awareness of the part played by the Drug War in our
present hysteria over violence. This is a serious error, because the
violence produced by the Drug War is one of the main reasons that a
majority of American citizens support gun control. Without the majority of
a citizenry frightened by endemic violence, Mr. Clinton and his allies in
the Congress would not enjoy the power they now posses to attack the Bill
of Rights.

To understand the effect of the Drug War, we must understand it for what it
is: the second Prohibition in America in this Century. I do not need to
remind anyone who knows our recent history what a disaster the first
Prohibition in America was. It is a classic example of the attempt to
control a vice -- drunkeness -- by police power. It made all use of
alcohol a case of abuse. It produced such an intense wave of violence that
it gave a name -- The Roaring Twenties -- to an entire decade. It lead to
the establishment of powerful criminal empires, to widespread corruption in
police and government, and to a surge of violence and gunfire all over the
land. And it produced a powerful attack on the Bill of Rights, including
the most successful campaign of gun control laws in America up to that
time. Before the first Prohibition criminalized the trade in alcohol,
liquor dealers were ordinary businessmen: after 1920 they were all violent
criminals fighting for their territories. We had gang wars, and drive-by
shootings and the use of machine guns by criminals. We now have the same
effects of the first Prohibition in the present Drug War, and Americans
appear to be sleepwalking through it with no apparent understanding of what
is happening. It is testimony to the truth of Santayana's famous remark
that those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it. We must
understand that this has all happened before, and for the same reasons.

It is essential that defenders of the 2nd Amendment understand the whole
Bill of Rights is under attack by the Drug War, and that assaults on the
2nd Amendment are a natural part of that trend. What is the main premiss
of a gun-control law? It is that guns are implements which are too
dangerous to entrust to the citizenry. What is the main premiss of Drug
Prohibition? It is that drugs are substances which are too dangerous to
entrust to the citizenry. Both lines of reasoning say that because a few
people abuse something, all Americans must be treated like children or
irresponsibles. All use is abuse. This is an extremely dangerous idea for
a government, and it leads inevitably to tyranny. It is a natural
consequence that such thinking will lead to attacks on the Bill of Rights,
because that is the chief defense in the constitution against abuses of
government power.

Since the beginning of the Drug War, no article of the Bill of Rights has
been spared from attack. There has been an enoromous increase in police
power in America, with a steady erosion of protections against unreasonable
search and seizure, violations of privacy, confiscation of property, and
freedom of speech. We have encouraged children to inform on their parents
and we tolerate urine tests as a condition of employment for anyone. All
who question the wisdom of Drug Prohibition are immediately attacked and
silenced. These are all violations of the Bill of Rights. Are we
surprised when the 2nd Amendment is attacked along with the others? We
understand that opponents of the 2nd Amendment exaggerate the dangers of
firearms and extrapolate the actions of deranged persons and criminals to
all guns owners. That is their method of propaganda. Do we also know that
Drug Warriors exaggerate the hazards of drug use -- "all use is abuse" -- in
the same way formerly done with alcohol, and extrapolate the condition of
addicts to all users of drugs? That is their method of propaganda. Most
Americans are convinced by both arguments, and both arguments depend on
the public's ignorance. That is why discussion and dissent is inhibited.
Most Americans are moving to the idea that drugs and guns are evil and
should be prohibited. Encouraging one way of thinking supports the other
because the logic of the arguments is the same.
Why not prohibit a dangerous evil? If every drinker is a potential
alcoholic, every drug-user a future addict, and every gun-owner a potential
killer, why not ban them all? There is no defense against this logic
except to challenge the lies that sit at the root of the arguments. Those
are the lies promoted by the prevailing propaganda in support of all
Prohibition. We cannot oppose one and support the other. To do so
undermines our efforts because all these movements walk on the same legs.
If we do not explain to people that the fusillade of gunfire in America,
the return of the drive-by shooting, and our bulging prisons, come from the
criminalizing of commerce in illegal drugs, we cannot expect them to listen
to a plea that we must tolerate some risk in defence of liberty.

Why should we tolerate, for the sake of liberty, the risk of a maniac
shooting a dozen people, when we cannot tolerate the risk that a drug-user
will become an addict? In fact, very few gun-owners are mass murderers and
a minority of drug users are addicts, but people are easily persuaded
otherwise and easily driven to hysteria by exaggerating dangers. What
addict would be a violent criminal if he could buy his drug from a pharmacy
for its real price instead of being driven to the inflated price of a
smuggler? How many cigarette smokers would become burglars or prostitutes
if their habits cost them $200 per day? How many criminal drug empires
could exist if addicts could buy a drug for its real cost? And without
Prohibition, what smuggler's territory would be worth a gang war? And why
isn't this obvious to all of us?

It is because both guns and drugs havve become fetishes to some people in
America. They blame guns and drugs for all the intractible ills of
society, and they never rest until they persuade the rest of us to share
their deranged view of the evil power in an inanimate object. They
succeed, mainly, by lies and deception. They succeed by inducing the
immediate experience of anxiety and horror by the mere mention of the
words: Guns! Drugs! Notice your reactions. Once that response is in
place, it is enough to make us accept any remedy they propose. An anxious
person is an easy mark. They even persuade us to diminsh the most precious
possession of Americans, the one marveled at by every visitor and cherished
by every immigrant, and the name of which is stamped on every coin we mint
-- Liberty. They say that liberty is just too dangerous or too expensive.
They say we will have to do with less of it for our own good. That is the
price they charge for their promise of our security.

Sincerely

Amicus Populi


* One of the "justifications" given by the ATF in the Waco
raid on the Branch Davidians... was that they had a
radical-underground-right-wing-fringe-gun-nut-magazine on the premises!
That turned out to be "Shotgun News." How very interesting.

* "These people, who do they think they are, saying that their government
has stamped out human freedom? We need to conduct a nation-wide search
for these right wing.... purveyors of hate." - Bill Clinton

No, because he has not victimized anyone. This should be a matter for the parents to punish the child, if they wish him to stay away from drugs (which any good parent would). The point, however, needs to be made that few if any would have the incentive to sell drugs to anyone, let alone minors, if they were legal to possess, purchase, and sell, i.e., there would be far fewer, if any, "pushers" attempting to hook anyone on drugs for profit.

Oh,now I get it....the financial transaction takes it outside the realm of criminal activity,right? Brilliant!! Don't think there's much to be learned from you other than it is good to learn that those who are grossly naieve and who clearly can not think outside the box are definitely out there.

And don't forget, the risk and loss must fall on the innocent for liberal sociological failures. Its not the professor in his gated community that suffers from crime, so he can be pretty, uh, detached in his pontifications about how the all this expense and inconvenience to the poor criminals.....who chose to be criminals.....means we should stop locking up the animals among us.

There is a self-evident reason for the long term decrease in violent crime rates, and that is that more violent criminals are behind bars. Where they belong. Maintaining them there is far less expensive than the cost of having them on the street.

if they were legal to possess, purchase, and sell, i.e., there would be far fewer, if any, "pushers" attempting to hook anyone on drugs for profit.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It would never be legal for minor's to possess or use controlled substances under any scenario. Consequently, there would be a premium price to be paid by the minors for the purchase. Those of you who continue to engage in the mind-set that the sale and distribution of drugs is a victimless crime will never have my acquiescence so, to that extent,the continued debate is futile.

That is exactly what goes on today with alcohol BUT, the usage rate is less also. Shall we again ban booze because some minors still buy it on the "black market"? I see a double standard here methinks.

Double standards is all you'll ever get from that kind of thinking. It's always shallow and bordering on obdurate.

Yeah, I suppose the premium under your scenario would be about like the premium kids pay for cigarettes and boos, but I am not aware of the prevalence of violent crime rings in the business of supplying kids with these things. The profit would not be sufficient to motivate it.

but I am not aware of the existence of violent crime rings in the business of supplying kids with these things. The profit would not be sufficient to motivate it.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Please tell me you're kidding in an effort to make some kind of point!

I ought to point out that crack and meth share a very nasty characteristic. One hit is all it takes to addict most people. Heroin a bit longer. I don't see booze being quite so emphatic. Besides, in my previous post, I outlined what those users actually do. Legalizing those drugs would not reduce the need and the necessity of paying for it. End result--burglary,robbery,theft,prostitution. The only other option would be government supplied crack and meth. So what is the answer?? Jail is about as good as we are going to get for the foreseeable future.

Perhaps I'm ignorant on this point, so please inform me of the kind of profit there is to be made selling cigarettes and boos to kids? Sufficient to risk jail time? Remember, your scenario was that it would remain a crime to sell to kids.

I guarantee you that if you slipped some crack in my morning glass of OJ, I would be no more inclined to go out and buy another hit than I am now. More likely less so.

"Things" includes illegal substances such as drugs and alcohol.Never heard of one guy going to jail for selling kids nicotine. The amount of the profit is of no significant import. But, in trying to understand you further, let's say a guy sells a kid a 5th of vodka for 50 bucks. Kid drinks to near unconsciousness then drives and kills an innocent. You feel the seller of the vodka to the kid should be subject to no criminal exposure,right?

There's no such thing as a war on drugs. How many on here have ever seen drugs laying in the street dead or dying? It's a war on people. A war on liberty.

If it continues as it has for another hundred years there will be no more effect than what we've already seen, none. The only difference will be much, MUCH less liberty. The drugs, violent crimes and gang related incidents will continue along smoothly. As will the futiile efforts of black-clad soldiers making war on the citizenry and the Bill of Rights.

How much time would you serve for selling a fifth of vodka to a minor today?

issac, I believe your scenario would be covered by the child endangerment statutes, please correct me if I am wrong Sir.

Hawk, this place is full of adolescent gangs of crack users and dealers....15 year old arrested for murder this week, crack dispute. 14 year old crack ho's. you have to catch them young, because they don't live long.

I'll keep that in mind when I see guys here complaining about how their homes were burglarizes,guns and jewelry stolen,cars broken into and cleaned out. I guess you believe things would be so much better for all of us if we just left those poor little scaliwags to themselves. Of course you will cheerfully pay the much higher insurance premiums and take the first steps towards sharing everything one owns just so these poor druggies can get their candy. If the cops can't fight them we can't either. so where is your liberty then?? At the mercy of drug addicts. And drugs would be legal How did that happen??

"The drugs, violent crimes and gang related incidents will continue along smoothly. As will the futiile efforts of black-clad soldiers making war on the citizenry and the Bill of Rights."

I take that back. In a hundred years theree will be no Bill of Rights. The neoconservatives will have long since done away with that troublesome document...

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! *****evil laugh*****yes, my paranoid friend, the PA stormtroopers are on their way to your house right now.


Before you knock black clad police, you ought to drive the battering ram on a few crack houses in the flooded parts of New Orleans, bro.

And if you think a society can just legalize hard drugs and shrug, take a little historical look at what opium did to the Asian countries where its use was, and is, widespread.

Don't normally answer to questions to a question but from probation to up to 30 days for a first time offense and no aggravating circumstances. Google criminal liability and sentencing of parents who allowed minors to drink in their homes and where aggravating circumstances later resulted. There's a Va couple who got 3 years, I believe, when one of the kids left the party and committed vehicular manslaughter.

Parents lose their children over the contributions to their kid's deliquencies such as permitting them to drink and drug.

You still didn't answer my question but I'll throw in another. Your wonderful child goes to a party where a 21 year old buys her booze and on her way home there is a fatal accident. Your daughter survives, is disfugured and there is a "victimless" dead guy. The 21 year old walks as he only committed a victimless crime that merely involved a financial transaction,right? Now make it pot, coke, meth or whatever your state has deemed a illegal, controlled substance.

Hawk, when you hang your shingle, allow me to give you some free, sound advice. If you get a case such as those described above, don't argue your beliefs to a Florida jury.

True, but that begs the question, doesn't it? Those kids are hooked and causing problems because there are huge profits to be made selling drugs, and that's because they are illegal with stiff penalties attached. These factors raise the price and the profit margins, thus the motivation of the suppliers and pushers, thus the number of kids who are hooked. Take the illegality out of the equation, and you pull the rug out from under the whole industry, and it disappears tomorrow. Of course that would put a whole lot of government employees out of work too, which is a large part of why it doesn't happen.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

No, you're not wrong Terry. Those are part of the criminal stautory scheme. Child endangerment charges are misdemeanor to felony offenses( still criminal statutes) Of course, if aggravating circumstances occur as a consequence of such sale and use, well, you know what lies next!

How many alcoholics and cigarette smokers break into homes to support their habits? Not many, because their habits are relatively cheap to support, as a drug habit would be, if they were legal to possess, sell, purchase. Cheaper, even.

Take the illegality out of it for whom, Hawkeye? Minors?

A lot of Mental Patients,who are largley only a threat to themselves,are taking up space in our cells.These people get no treatment or help.At one time ,they were housed in Mental Institutions.Now with no Meds or help they wind up in jail.I am not talking of murders,rapists or strong arm robbers.I am talking of people who have fallen between the cracks of Society,because of the Demise of Mental health care by our Kinder,compassionate government. I am not a Liberal.No way.Facts are facts.I am all for Swift Justice for Dangerous Criminals(The Gallows)But a lot of people taking up space in prisons do not belong there.

Quit throwing cigarette smoking into the mix. It's silly. As to alcohol, it is probably the most prevalent drug involving all crimes committed while under any influence of intoxicants.

Bullcrap Hawkeye. Most druggies use on the order of $100 a day. Lots use much more. When they use that much more then we get stuck with paying the hospital bills for them and it ain't cheap nor is it pretty. I had to work in the bad areas for 24 years and the toll it takes it stupifying. Cheap?? NOT by any stretch of the imagination. They make the clssic jakie bum look like a clean,model citizen by comparison.

Hawk...Are you trying to dance around a position that it should be legal for minors to purchase alcohol and drugs?

Perfect. We have a real victim here. This is not a mere case of possession, sale or purchase. You make my case for me, my friend. You need a victim for there to be a crime. The person here didn't die from an act of nature.Again, "contributing to the delinquency of a minor," not mere possession, sale, purchase. Once again, you are making my case for me. I can just sit back and relax while you do so.The questions to be asked in this case are 1) "is causation established?" and 2) "was the outcome foreseeable?" If yes to both, then you have a legitimate case. If not, then no. That's our legal tradition, i.e., we have a victim and a wrong-doer who caused the victimization, so punishment follows after proof in a court of law.No, they need to be argued to the American people and to our representatives in government first. They are more essentially political arguments than legal ones at this point in our history.

You are partly right. I work in a prison mental health unit. We have a few guys who simply are so bad they should be in a mental institution. Alot of our nurses and phychs used to work for the ODMH but lost jobs due to cut backs. They know several of these inmates from those institution. The question is, where is the line? Mental illness in it self does not excuse crime. Even in the institution the line between conduct and aspect of mental health is very gray.

Perfect. We have a real victim here.
_______________________________________

No it's not yet perfect. Do you feel there should be criminal culpability towards the parents or the 21 year old that gave the minor driver the liquor?

To whatever extent it is feasible to take illegality out of it, to that extent you reduce the incentive (potential profits) to supply and push.

+1

You are characteristically avoiding my question, but are you suggesting that the Volstead Act should be reinstated?

How can anyone who claims to be a Republican and a believer in capitalism and the free market post such tripe. You are sounding a lot like the liberals. The only thing missing is you posting 'it's for the children', but you eem to be arguing for the nanny state.

Profit motive is the one and only thing that motivates pushers. Ever look at the rate of drug use in countries that have liberal drug policies? Remove the profit motive and there is no reason for dealers to try to create new customers.

As far as instant addiction, how about some cites from the scientific literature to back up those claims? And even in the case of addiction, there are a significant number of addicts who are actually able to function and hold down job - even white collar jobs - for years at a time.

Even Rush Limbaugh was a drug addict while hosting a nationally syndicated show.

If you legalized drugs, the users wouldn't have to commit crimes to pay for their addiction.

You are not thinking outside the box. If it were up to you, there would be no contributing to the deliquency because it should be legal, as there isn't a victim as of yet.According to your train of thought,there isn't a victim until such time as there is a a tragedy somewhere down the line.

In a drunk driver fatality involving an innocent, you can spend as much time on the causality and foreseeabilty all you like. The prosecutor will quickly blow right by you. If your an adult who permits minors to consume alcohol in your presence, and then one of those minors leave and kills an innocent,I'd be focusing mostly upon mitigation rather than putting all my marbles in a causation and foreseeabilty strategy basket. But, that's just me!

This isn't a capitalism debate and the transparency of your diversion is obvious and...well, silly.

We regulate the activity of minors for lots of thing. But as someone noted that if drugs were illegal only for those under 18, it's doubtful there would be a large market. What sort of income do minors have.

Of course, we do recognize that you are trying to act 'for the children'. You should join the Dems since you know what is best for everyone. Isn't that their creed - that we need big government to take care of us?

Avoiding your question? You make me laugh! A question about cigarettes? Don't have the time to respond to that silliness in a legalization of drugs debate.

I don't think I've danced around it. I think I've stated that parents ought to be in charge of their own children. The simple act of selling something is not, in and of itself, a crime, since that simple act, in and of itself, has no victim. It's highly irresponsible, and society ought to condemn folks who do it, but it isn't an actual crime, as I see it, until there is 1) an actual victim (someone harmed) and 2) there is a causal link proximate to the source of the substances in question to the harm caused.

Tod...Your naivety is alarming. Your foolishness, premising some of your follow up comments, while typical, lends me to believe you lived a very sheltered life.

Put your comments out there on the political campaign Tod. You'll make RP's polling numbers seem like a landslide majority!

Not unless you have 1) a victim, and 2) an unbroken proximately causal link between the actions of the accused and the harm to the victim.

You hit dead on TRH.

The Social-ist Conservatives want to control the Great Unwashed Middle Class every bit as much as the Socialist Liberals--each are on parallel paths that will ultimately arrive at the same destination.


Jacques, I'm with you all the way!



Casey

Of course, we do recognize that you are trying to act 'for the children'. You should join the Dems since you know what is best for everyone. Isn't that their creed - that we need big government to take care of us
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I'll certainly make this clear. Republican, Democrat or whatever you really are, I certainly wouldn't want you implementing laws involving the safety of my children.

How about we just leave it up to the fit parents and keep government out of it except for the most severe, obvious cases?


"Let's do it for the children" was far from exclusive to the Democrats--if anything, the Law & Order Republicans were worse about it.......


Casey

Live it up to the fit parents, huh? You do live in a enclave.

Oh, well if the kid in your scenario doesn't actually become a delinquent, then you are correct. No victim in that case, so no crime. But if the kid does in fact become a delinquent (e.g., drops out of school, starts to steal, joins a gang and extorts other kids for money, etc.), and there is an unbroken chain of proximate causation, then you have the basic components for a crime in the classical sense of that word.

So, what your saying is when the kid does become delinquent, those responsible for the deliquency can and should be criminally charged,right?

Quite the reverse. After working with addicts, and being married to a LEO with 23 years on the job I have become firmly convinced that the war on drugs has been an abject failure.

That the public at large has been seriously misinformed about the effectiveness on the war on drugs has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it is true or not. Man people once thought the world war flat. Did that make it so?

The verbal gymnastics you display are quite amusing and clearly demonstrate you have chosen your profession well. Take your comments about drugs and replace them with something like terrorism, and you are arguing the from the same position you ridicule. Or apply your logic to guns. And popularity has nothing to do with 'right'. Isn't that what you argue vis-a-vis the war.

Finally, you also are operating under the mistaken idea that the only thing I am trying to do is get elected. You may adopt your moral, ethical and legal positional based on what is popular, or will gain you position, but I happen to believe that principles should not be sacrificed in the name of popularity. Better to lose and stand on principle than blow with the wind, even if that means being unpopular or not getting elected.

Of course as a lawyer, having principles is probably detrimental to your career.

See what I mean?--the only folks fit enough are the chosen few?--like those with law degrees?



Casey

So the government should really take over the care and raising of our children. That is what you are advocating, yes?

Sure you aren't a democrat deep down.

"It's for the children" and "Government knows best". These seem to be your mantras.

Alpinecreek, we talk a lot about the neo-cons and their links to liberals, and this is a classic example. 'Republicans' like Isaac are basically arguing that they can run your life better than the Dems.

I don't want or need anyone to run my life, even if they think they 'know what's best for us' and are doing it 'for the children'.

If you can establish proximate causation, yes. That is to say, 1) were it not for the sale of drugs to the minor, he would not have become a delinquent, and 2) the chain of causation is unbroken by an intervening/superceding cause.

Tod...Let me get this straight before I come right out and accept the fact you're just a loopy guy. Is it your position that the criminaliztion by and through the selling of drugs and alcohol to minors is a government invention only implemented because the government wants to control the raising of kids over a parent's rights to decide what's best for their children?

As to your other non-sensical post, sorry if I don't consider your life experiences or your wife's job as authoritative at all.

Tell your campaign boys you ain't in it to win and it's your principles that are paramount.Unless they already know you aren't in it to win or can't, I'd make sure you have at least a couple grand in contributions before you do so.

Lastly, a transparent politician denouncing the principles of attorneys has some great punch to it Tod.... what a knock-out blow! LMAO!

I think Tod would make a good politician! You on the other hand, Bob, should of been a nanny!

If your comment relates to my position of drug and alcohol laws pertaining to the safety of children, I'll accept that. I can assure you it would be far better, for some here, than my being a juvenile and domestic relations judge presiding over cases where children's parents take a position as manifested in some of the posts in this thread.

Well I can see where your coming from--More laws = More business for lawyers too.

More laws and the fact I'm an attorney has nothing to do with my views as to laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol and drugs to minors. If I were a stone mason, my view would be the same.Mostly, my views stem from being a father and from 21 years of seeing just exactly what devastation can be thrust upon families who suffer the fallout.Victimless, my azz.And to present a position that it is merely a non-criminal financial transaction demonstrates a ignorance I am incapable of grasping. I lament the fact,both as a dad and a lawyer, it often takes tragedies for some folks to get it.

Do you, particularly, have a problem with those laws, Jacques?

I have a problem with them in the fact that each and every law is an infringement on our rights and privacy. I know you weren't using those rights anyway, but I'm in favor of keeping mine. I have a 24 year old daughter as well, and am not the least bit worried about her becoming a druggie. You see, I think that's a parents job to teach them better, and the farther the government is kept from interfering in her or my grand children's lives the better off they will be for it. I can see right where this war on drugs is taking us--more wiretaps, more unwarranted searches, seizure of private properties. It's sort of like the "War on Terrorism," and the "Patriot Act". I can't see anything more patriotic than giving up essential liberties for the safety of the children, and all the while, we're really changing the country into a place that won't be fit to live in when all the rules are passed. It's really about power--the kind the Founding Fathers didn't want the government to possess. After all, it's the argument they'll be using when they come for your guns too--"It's for the children" ("But I had guns as a child," I say, "That proves you were neglected and put at risk by your parents", they'll say). I guess in short, it must be the Darwinist in me, maybe even a little of the Social Darwinist, that believes that the fit will take care of themselves and those not so, will perish--so be it. In the meantime, I don't see how it can possibly be in my best interests to give up rights, and taxes, to make sure that some ignorant Springer candidate, can have a trailer, a place in jail, or even a big old government funded mental institution, while reproducing at my expense.

I like to think of myself as an Ayn Rand type of objectivist and I have seen for years where the looters and the new rules are leading us. I have a problem with about 95% of all laws, those particular ones are included. I know it may be hard for you to imagine, Bob, but I believe that I can take better care of myself and my family than a bunch of Liberals and social conservatives ever could.

From out here near Galt's Gulch, Brad.

Educating your children about drugs is far more effective than passing more laws which are really aimed at controlling the behavior of adults. Keep in mind the origin of this argument was about adults, and the issue of children was inserted to appeal to the emotional side. It's exactly the same argument used by the anti-gun folks.

If drug laws really work in reducing drug use, why do countries like Holland, with extremely liberal drug laws, actually have much lower rates of drug use?

And FYI, I am in this race to win, but just not to win at any cost. If you cast aside your principles when they become inconvenient, then you really don't have any principles at all. My donors know exactly where I stand on all of the issues. You should have learned by now from posts right here that I don't say what I think what will garner approval, but rather what I think I right. I don;t argue that you necessarily have to agree. Ultimately the voters will decide who they want, and that right an proper.

The problem with people who claim to believe in freedom is that they don't understand that true freedom includes the freedom to make bad choices. The only way you can keep people from making bad choices is to take away any choices at all and dictate behavior. And of course who decides what are 'good' and 'bad' choices?

I completely understand your position, because as a lawyer it is all about wining, and nothing to do about truth or justice or principle. The only rule is to win. You don't get clients if you don't. How many people have you defended who you knew to be guilty? How many have you helped avoid paying for their crimes? If you were appointed to defend a drug dealer who was selling to children, would you not work as hard to get him off because of your principles?

Finally, I think we all recognize that drugs have a devastating effect on peoples lives. But can you show any evidence that the increased incarceration rates or the war on drugs has actually made a difference, other than filling up our prisons?

If you look at the statistics, drug use has actually increased in the US since the 'war on drug' began in the 1970s. The purity and availability of drugs has gone up. More people are using and we have vast and well funded criminal enterprises in the US funded with drug money.

So basically, after 30 years, vast sums of money and thousand of people put into prison, we are actually worse off that before.

So how are the current drug laws working.

By contrast, areas with active and aggressive drug education campaign has seen a decline in drug use, particularly in the case of minors.

Education may not be as viscerally satisfying as throwing people into jails. But it certainly seems more effective.

Finally, with regard to being a parent, many of us are too. Thinking in terms of your own children, which do you consider a better deterrent: setting a good example and educating them, or leaving it to the government and fear of the law and going to jail?

"If you cast aside your principles when they become inconvenient, then you really don't have any principles at all."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Amen, Tod!!!!

I'm not a big fan of the war on drugs, either, but to propose no laws to prosecute those who would sell to a minor is ridiculous.

Tod's fantasy of education as a cure-all has never worked and never will. The best of the educated from the best of parents will play, pure and simple. Always have.

Try the education approach for those that it will help, reserve harsh punishment for those who would sell to our children - regardless of whether some calamity occurs. The cat is out of the bag, cow out of the barn, etc... To qualify that as any sort of harmless event is preposterous.

Save the "possession" punishment for the extremely harmful (strongly addictive) drugs such as meth, not something relatively harmless like pot.

Someone mentioned above that there is no evidence that meth is more addicting than anything else. BS, even the Narcanon web site talks about its' ability to addict in very short order.

Actually Joe, I don't have any problem with laws regarding minors. As I stated a while ago, we have always recognized that minors are a special case under the law. The argument has really been about the drug war in general, which certain people turned into 'we must do this to protect children' to make their case.

I'd have no problem whatsoever with laws that punish those who take advantage of children. But what was argued is that if we liberalized (Isaac will probably be all over that word) the laws as they apply to adults, there wouldn't be a sufficient market among minors alone to be profitable for dealers.

And as noted, there is exactly zero evidence that the war on drugs has done anything to reduce the use of drugs by anyone, including minors. Indeed, drug use in the US has actually increased in the last 25 years.

By contrast, countries with fairly relaxed drugs laws and public education about drugs, have much lower rates of drugs us among groups of all ages.

This is not opinion, this is fact. Regardless of how much we wish it to be true, the war on drugs has accomplished nothing except to fill up our prisons.

Time to try a different approach.

I don't think anyone said it was "harmless" to sell drugs to kids. It's not harmless to persuade a kid to pop wheelies on his bicycle without a helmet either, yet that's not a crime, and shouldn't be, unless foreseeable harm resulted and the kid was known by the persuader to be quite low functioning and impressionable, and actual harm resulted. We should, in any case, exert a great deal of social pressure against those who would induce a child to pop wheelies with their bikes absent a helmet, and we should do likewise (injury or no) with regard to those who'd sell them cigarettes, alcohol or other drugs, i.e., they should be made pariahs in their communities. But criminalize only actions which foreseeably cause actual harm to an actual victim. That's our legal tradition in this nation. The other nonsense (punishing the possession, sale, or purchase of something because it makes future real criminality a possibility) is a recent and alien influence, not to mention destructive of liberty.

But Isaac's objection about children distracts us from a crucial point, which is that there would be no market at all for the industry which supplies and pushes these drugs to kids if drugs were, generally speaking, legal to possess, use, sell or buy. Even if only legalized for adults, the industry which supplies and pushes to kids would disappear.

Brad, so that I don't misunderstand your intemded position; is it your belief that the only deterrent to a legal adult selling alcohol or drugs to a minor or a parent permitting the use of alcohol and drugs to their minor children would be the parent's of the minor themselves.

Hawkeye, you're talking in circles. You claim that no one said selling drugs to children is harmless and then you say to criminalize only those actions which foreseeably cause actual harm to an actual victim.

That foresseable harm would be the possibility of addiction, the certainty of impaired judgment, and all that can follow that.

Social pressure deterring a drug dealer? That's funny!

The argument has really been about the drug war in general,
_____________________________

No it hasn't. The discussion had specifically centered around the very issue Joe addressed.

And Hawk, you most certainly implied it was harmless to sell drugs to kids. How else could you argue that it was merely a non-criminal financial transaction and there shouldn't be laws prohibiting it?

The waffling is amusing to witness, to say the least!

I'm on the stand I see.

And since you've converted this to a "for the children" issue to make it more debatable, when it was really a "beating a dead horse" issue, based on years of TWOD not doing chit for the children or the adults--Yep.

Real crimes involve actual victims. Possession and personal use, purchase or sale of items or substances are not real crimes.
+++++++++++++++++++++++

FWIW, I believe the above quote from TRH shifted the discussion. Anyways, I will never understand how a person/parent could believe that the only deterrent to underage possesion,(drugs/alcohol) or the sale of alcohol and drugs to minors, should only be the parents themselves, rather than a law deterring and punishing such actions.

You have now convinced me to certainty that such laws are clearly necessary.

Jacques, real crimes are whatever the state defines as real crimes. Real in the sense that if you do the stated offense and are convicted of it, you can be fined or go to jail. And that's pretty damn real as far as I'm concerned.

Unless you're speaking in hypothets, or live in Barakistan.

I could take you on a ten minute drive that I think would convince you that personal drug use and sale is not a victimless crime. I agree that doesn't fully answer the issue of whether and to what extent we need prohibibition......but it ain't victimless, and I don't just mean the users.

That's why we need politicians that aren't "defining" so many real crimes. It looks to me like we had less victims before TWODs and I just don't mean druggies either!

OK, then why do we need separate drug laws and such for those cases. It would seem that selling, procuring or giving to a minor would already be covered. I am serious about this, we have too many damn laws that attack the item rather than the use. That is where I am coming from on this issue.

Because of the varying elements of proof and punishment ranges for specific offenses.

Let's say a certain child endangerment statute provided for a year in jail uopn conviction. Well, that might be suitable for a case where mom was drunk driving with her kid in the backseat without a seatbelt but not sufficient for the 19 year old who sells meth to a sophomore in HS who rams a row of cars in the school parking lot.

You need to be very careful as to what criminal charge you specifically wish to levy upon the alleged defendant Terry and the possible consequences and sentencing ranges once you do so. I'd bet you spent much of your time discussing with the other powers that be, beside yourself, as to what an alleged defendant should be charged with.

The issue surrounding minors is the fact that parents hold certain of their children's rights in trust until the children are old enough to take responsibility for the exercise of those rights themselves. One of those rights is the right to decide for oneself how one will be medicated.

If a drug pusher sells heroin to a 13-year-old with her parents' permission, no one's rights have been violated and there's no justification for government to become involved.

If a drug pusher sells heroin to a 13-year-old without her parents' permission, though, to the extent that the 13-year-old's right to self-medication is held in trust by her parents, he's violating that right.

Theoretically the government could justifiably become involved, but it would be simpler, more effective, quicker, cheaper, and more honorable for the parents to address the problem themselves--by parenting: in this case probably the father, probably with an unannounced visit to the drug pusher involving a nice 12ga pump and a smattering of harsh language.

But if the government did become involved, the charge would not be sales, possession, or ingestion of a product without government approval: it'd be something similar to poisoning: tricking somebody into ingesting a harmful substance without her consent.

In the case of a 13-year-old, her right to choose what to ingest is held by her parents; they delegate it to her as they see fit. For example, they may consider her competent to choose whether to order green beans or broccoli; but most parents wouldn't consider a 13-year-old competent to choose whether or not to use heroin. If they don't delegate the right to her in the case of heroin, then she doesn't have the right; therefore no matter what she says she can't give consent.

So there are perfectly reasonable ways to use a legal system to penalize the sale of heroin to minors, if you'd rather have the legal system parent your children than do it yourself, without criminalizing an inanimate substance, possession of property, or consensual business transactions.

I spent many a session with the DA to determine what actual charges were to be place after I made an arrest via the uniform statutes. This would be based on the circumstance of the individual crime. Say I made an initial arrest for ADW because the actor shot but did not kill the victim, this got em in the clink. But then the follow up investigation showed that the actor had previously threatened the victim and actively searched them out and made the assault and the victim was unarmed or incapable of self-defense, the charge is now attempted murder 1.

You only think it's circular because you misunderstand. First, there MUST be real harm, i.e., a real victim (or the intention to do real harm to a real victim, as in the inchoate crimes). Second, that harm must have been reasonably foreseeable by the charged individual. If, for example, I don't know that little Johnny is deathly allergic to peanuts, and I offer him a package of them, resulting in his near death and hospitalization, I have not committed a crime no matter how much harm my actions have caused little Johnny, i.e., my actions were not the proximate cause of the injury since I lacked the knowledge of his vulnerability.

On the other hand, if I hate little Johnny's folks, and I decide to get back at them by offering little Johnny some peanuts, which I know he's deathly allergic to, then (and this is the crucial part), if Johnny is actually harmed by consuming the peanuts, or would have been if someone hadn't intervened in time (i.e., suffers a real injury, or would have), then I've committed a serious crime. Furthermore, if I believed he was allergic to all peanuts, and didn't know that he was allergic only to Spanish peanuts, and I offered him Virginia peanuts, causing no harm at all (regardless of my intent to harm), then I have also committed no crime, my excuse being physical impossibility.

No waffling here.

Well said. I officially adopt this post as my official position on the drugs sold to children question.

I was afraid of that!

Well what in the hell can the outcome be but what it is.

Some things can only be operated by the government. No matter how loud ya hollar about how much better private industry can do a job don't make it so.

If its a luxury then let private industry provide it.

If its a necessity then often only the government can provide it at the least cost with the most beneficial outcome.

The private prison industrial complex develpoed in the '80s and see what we got for our money. An increase in business while providing the least product at a higher cost to provide what...PROFIT.

Substitute the word "guns" for drugs and you'll see why your arguement fails.

Couldn't you take someone to the ninth ward and show them a lot of "gun victims" too?

Canada doesn't have a "War on drugs" - in fact up here, judges usually treat drug use as a a social problem - not a crime. We even have places where addicts can go to inject safely - and get counciling at the same time. We have alcoholics who get wine (rather than listerine or cooking wine or aftershave) - and with their wine, again, they get - you guessed it - counciling. Because what they are doing to themselves in an illness - not a crime.

As a result we have a small fraction of our population in jails - compared to the USA - and yet we have safer streets.

If the "War on Drugs" down your way is a good thing - I have to ask - how's it working for you so far?

WOW...I just Googled "Canada's drug problems" and there is only 108 million articles with the most prevalent ones addressing the concern that "something must be done" or "it's time to get serious". I guess your Canada is different or you haven't a clue as to what goes on in places like Ontario as a whole or Toronto itself, to name a couple.

You make me all warm and wiggly inside.

To say something can only be operated by the government is equivalent to saying that it must be operated coercively because there isn't sufficient public demand or desire for it to enable it to be operated voluntarily--that is, a private company trying to do it would go bankrupt.

--which is equivalent to saying that it's a waste of time and money and shouldn't be done in the first place.


The thing private industry does better is that it doesn't do it if people don't want it enough to voluntarily pay what it costs to provide.


I defy you to provide a single example.


There's no such thing as a private prison. There are things that are called private prisons, but they're certainly not free-market affairs: they're coercively funded through government extortion.

Check the stats for incarceration rates, in Canada vs. the U.S.A.

Especially for the "victimless" (ie: self abuse) crimes.

There is no nation in the free world anywhere close to the U.S.A. - and yet your "mean-streets" are as mean as any on earth.

So you think the "War on Drugs" is working do you Isaac?

Hawkeye, I'm not going to waste a lot of time reading your Barack wanna be crap.

Simple question - do you understand and recognize any difference between selling little Johnny crack or selling him peanuts? By your statements they are one and the same.

Go sell that drivel somewhere else.

Barak feeling the love said....You make me all warm and wiggly inside.


Ladies, anyone following and/or agreeing with these two need to reevaluate their lives and really should seek counseling (or switch Dr's, cause the current one ain't working)....try defending the above in Anywhere, America and you shouldn't be surprised at the disbelieving looks from your audience.

"Barak wanna be" huh? Well, I like Barak, and I agree with him quite a lot, but we've also had some pretty heated debates on his anarchism. In fact, most of our exchanges have been heated debates concerning that topic, but when I agree with him, I'm going to say so.

Ah--okay, that makes more sense.

I thought he was accusing you of being a Barack wannabe--you know, Barack Obama, with a C. Couldn't figure that one out.

Sorry for butchering your name and causing any sort of confusion.

Regardless of how lost I might think you guys are I'd never go so far as calling ANYONE an Obama......

In this case it's unfair to Obama.

I dunno, Stan, that's kinda harsh. But I'm new here, too.....

Well, I doubt we'll hear Obama give drug dealers a thumbs up if they've asked a minor's parents permission to give/sell drugs to their children....even he's not that stupid. Or, harsh.......

Where you been,Stan?

We have some good but scary thinkers here, don't we? All you need is a mom and dad and the drug scourge shoots to zero!!

Isaac, wouldn't selling drugs to kids fall under state child endangerment laws? You don't need to have Federal laws specific to drug sales, purchases, possession (all of which laws are unconstitutional), to have laws protecting kids from pushers, is my point.

Read prior posts on this subject a page or two back Hawk. It was an exchange between Terry Lee and myself. There are element of prrof issues and punishment ranges that have to be factored into the decision to criminally charge.

Our drug laws here are primarily state, sometimes federal, depending upon where the crime occurred and your comment the laws are unconstitutional is kinda silly.

I've been leaving the campfire alone....but, this topic pops up and it is incredible to read some of this drivel. Amazing that some of these dudes consider themselves deep thinkers....could it be that drug dealers got to these people early? There's some damage here.....I wonder what THEIR God would think of this thought process? (that should hijack this thread for a couple of days)

My comment was specific to Federal laws concerning the prohibition of certain drugs. When a specific mind altering substance was Federally regulated in the past (alcohol), a Constitutional Amendment was first required, which was later repealed. It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that any further efforts on the part of the Federal Government to regulate the possession, sale, use, purchase of another mind altering substance would require yet another amendment. We have had no such amendment of the Constitution since the repeal of Prohibition. Therefore, any Federal laws which presume to outlaw or regulate such substances are without Constitutional authorization, making them "unconstitutional." Please explain what part of this is "silly."

Match Point-- Hawkeye!!!!

"When a specific mind altering substance was Federally regulated in the past (alcohol), a Constitutional Amendment was first required, which was later repealed. It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that any further efforts on the part of the Federal Government to regulate the possession, sale, use, purchase of another mind altering substance would require yet another amendment. We have had no such amendment of the Constitution since the repeal of Prohibition."

+1

Obviously, if drugs weere legalized it'd be just like alcoholic beverages, no sales to minors allowed and MIP would still be illegal. I see no reason for this continous harping on "save the children". It's a distraction to conversation.


To understand the number one reason people resist change in current drug laws, all one need do is follow the money. Other than the fear-factor planted in the 70's, nurished relentlessly, and held mostly by the elderly the main reason people don't want drugs legalized is money. The street vendor wants them illegal or he looses his profit. The big time dealers (often business men whom you'd never suspect) want them kept illegal or they loose their profits. The importers want them illegal or they loose their profits. Manufacturers of domestic product want them illegal or they loose their profits. The prison systems want them illegal or they loose profits. The government wants them illegal or they loose profits. The handmaidens to the government (lawyers) want them illegal or they loose profits. To me this alls eems pretty simple, actually...

On the othere side the people who want drugs legalized fall into 2 basic catagories. 1. Casual drug users who don't like the high price of black market products nor the chance of jailtime/fines (non-criminal types living and working among you) and 2. those who see the drug war as the hoax that it is and have learned the lesson history taught with prohibition, those true conservatives who prefer liberty over yet another facade of gov't-mandated "security". The biggest reason the streets and alleyways of America are dangerous is because drugs are illegal. Take away the profit and we'll all be far more secure.

History's lesson seems to have eluded many. On second thought, it eluded none. They decided not to learn. And probably for reasons of profit....

I'm not surprised that the people that think children becoming pregant in a cult is OK and no one else's business, are the same people that think it's OK for children to use drugs. I'm wondering if there's not something deep seated against children at work here....or controlling.

Well, thanks. We appreciate that.

When you come right down to it, though, it's not that big a butcher job. The word that means "lightning" in Hebrew is actually spelled "ברק" and "Barak" is merely a transliteration of it. Any English spelling that stimulates the proper noises when read is theoretically just as valid as any other, and "Barack" certainly does that.

Looks weird to me though.

Jacques...certainly you jest!It was an amusing gesture of solidarity on your part though, just premature. Hawkeye, you're trained in law, right? Familiarize yourself with the history before and after and the aftermath relating to the Harrison Act of 1914 and then the SC case of "Whipple v Martinson.

You guys crack me up who just grab some simple minded thought and then run with it as though it were gospel. Federal drug laws unconstitutional....LMAO!! All those thousands of actual legal scholars, including SC Justices, that have addressed this issue, have nothing on your thorough research, I guess Hawkeye!

Of course it's not victimless. Neither is alcohol abuse or even eating fatty foods. But the victim is the person themselves. Freedom means being free to make bad choices. When should the state intervene. Should suicide be illegal? Alcohol abuse? Smoking?

We know from scientific studies that certain foods leads to poor heath, disease and death. Should the state control what you can eat?

It is all the same. There is just an arbitrary line drawn in the sad, and one that can be moved at any time. And it is always in the name of protecting the individual from themselves. This country survived from 150 years with virtually no drug laws at all.

The difference is that in the past people were more inclined to 'mind there own business'. The idea that the state should control your personal behavior because it is self destructive is the 'nanny state', the ultimate expression of democratic ideology - 'we know what is best for you'.

If someone is over 18 and isn't hurting anyone else, why is it my business? Isn't it their life and their decision?

Bite me!!!!

You'll never get it.


I need to go find something else to do today!!!!!

Stay off those boards if your asparagus hunting, Jacques!

You should change to the democratic party, the way you sling that argument.

"It's for the children"

The point is that throwing lots of people in jail for drug violations hasn't fixed the problem. Drugs are still available, drug use is still much higher than any other modern industrialized nation. 25 after Nixon's declaration and the war on drugs has accomplished nothing. It has been and abject failure.

Regardless of your personal philosophy about drugs and drug laws, we have achieved nothing. As Steve_NO points out, a few minutes drive will show anyone how unsuccessful the war on drugs is.

Some of you (Isaac, Steve_NO, StanV) like to argue that you are realists, and live in the real world.

The war on drugs has failed in the real world.

Your comment above seemed intelligent to you,didn't it??

You're right.

Different people mean different things by the word "unconstitutional." Particularly, there are two different meanings that have been used in this discussion and ones like it.

One meaning is, "having been declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court and the legal establishment."

The other is, "obviously contrary to a plain reading of the Constitution by anyone with at least a fifth-grade education."

The War On Drugs is not and will never be unconstitutional by the first meaning; but it always has been unconstitutional by the second meaning.

We need two different words.

I don't know what party you belong to, but when you're running for office this election why don't you bring your drug thoughts to the platform? I doubt a candidate will crash any faster than those that spout your nonsense on drugs....

Great way to avoid the issue, Stan.

Can you or Isaac show, from real data, that the 'war on drugs' has actually done anything to reduce drug use or drug related crime in the US?

No one here is arguing that drugs are good. We are arguing that the current 'solution' isn't working.

And to address the election issues, Isaac and I have already been down that road.

If the only thing you care about is being elected, you become Hillary Clinton and say whatever you think people want to hear, even going so far as to contradict yourself.

Sometimes the truth is not popular, but that doesn't make it any less true. And you'd be surprised how many people, when they have the real facts, accept that the current system is not working. Also, the voters typically don't look at a single issue.

I am running to win, but I am not going to compromise my beliefs because some people might not like them. If that means I lose, then that is democracy. I won't abandon my principles just to win.

Some of us don't form our moral positions or our principles based on what is popular. Nor do we toss them away when inconvenient.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Has the war on drugs worked as a country, probably not, has it worked in various communities, yes it has.

I've seen the statistics and actual fisthand working knowledge in certain counties within this state regarding Meth. to know that it's working due to certain laws and increased enforcement. The same with outdoor marijuana grow operations years ago, increased enforcement worked.

Has it made a difference across the nation, don't know i am leary of some Govt. statistics.

I know what the citizens in my community want, they want it gone, how ever and whatever it takes to reduce or eliminate if possible. These citizens are probably more conservative, then the majority across the nation.

No, Tod, I'm not talking about the users, I'm talking about the destroyed, uninhabitable neighorhoods, the old people hiding behind barred doors and windows, unable to protect their meager possessions from the criminals, the twelve year old girls pimped out by their crackhead mothers, the children dropping out of school to deal, the addicted babies born......giving society's blessing to crack by legalizing it would make all theses problems worse, not better.

It depends on what you consider the 'war on drugs'. Here in Montana we have had a pretty successful education campaign against Methamphetemine - one that I fully support.

I think what many of us are dismissive of are increased penalties and longer jail times for users - an outgrowth of the whole 'zero tolerance' mentality. It costs about $25,000 of taxpayer dollars to keep one person in prison per year. Our average incarceration rate in the US is right around one percent of the entire US population. This is about 4x the rate of incarceration of Red China. And yet we still lead the industrialized world in both drug use and crime. By contrast we can look at countries like Holland that have very liberal drug laws, and yet have much lower instance of drug use.

What can we draw from this? Probably that all the increase emphasis on harsher punishment and more time in prison has little or nothing to do with fixing the problem.

Another poster said it well in that it is in large part about money. We used to be a nation of problem solvers. Now we are all about how to make money from the problem, which de-incentivizes fixing the problem in the first place. This is easy to see in a number of industries. Take for example the pharmaceutical industry. At one time, the thrust of research was cures. Now most drugs are about treating symptoms rather than fixing the underlying problem. Why cure a disease when we can sell a drug that tales care of the symptom - and sell it to you for the rest of your life?

The war on drugs is remarkably similar. Why fix the problem when we can 'control' it and make money at the same time, whether directly as profits, or indirectly as bigger agencies, more funding, newer and sexier equipment.

For Stan and Isaac, don't mistake a philosophical discussion which flows from principles from a real political issue.

Firstly, the drug war isn't really even on my agenda. Government waste, government spending and government intrusion are. From my political perspective, the drug war is a financial issue. We have (thankfully) a requirement for a balanced budget in our state. That means we have to either raise taxes or cut funding to add new programs.

In that case, the drug issue becomes one of resources. When the state wants to launch a new program or build a new prison, the question is all about 'how will it be paid for'? and 'is this a good use of public money'? What other program will we cut to pay for it, or what new tax will we impose. And finally, will the tax payer get value for their money

So as far as pitching it to the voters, it plays very well. You might be in favor of the 'war on drugs' as long as it's purely a philosophical issue. But when you tell them that taxes have to be raise to do so, and by the way, it isn't really going to fix anything, you get a very different response.

Basically, you cannot win the war of 'supply and demand' - which is what the drug war is about - by cutting off the supply. Inmates can get drugs while in prison. If you can't stop people in prison from getting drugs, what makes you think you can stop it in the 'outside' world? The only solution is to cut demand. In the mean time, you can take away the incentive of the drug dealer. Take away his profit, and you take away his ability to bribe, buy his guns, cigarette boats, airplanes and his influence.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Govt. waste, fraud/abuse etc. does the state of Montana have term limits on elected officials at the city/county/state level?

This is one of the biggest areas of corrupt Govt. in the world, the career politician. Many people do a great job a term or two, they go to crap. I'll refer it as retired on active duty, i see so many cases of this, it's a shame.It's very hard to beat a long standing politican, by a newcomer.

If the state doesn't, this in itself from the city/county/state level, will make one of the biggest differences in local/state Govt.

Are you certain. If drugs could be obtained cheaply and safely, then addicts would not have to rob, or prostitute themselves to feed their addiction.

No one is advocating having society 'give it's blessing'. Cigarettes are legal, but we don't encourage their use. I think what many of the people who are advocating decriminalization realize is that by removing the profit incentive for dealers, we can eliminate a great deal of derivative crime related to drug use. That certainly seems to be the case in most of Europe, where drug use is treated as more of a social and medical issue than a criminal one.

You are aware that there are a large number of addicts in this country who are actually able to lead functional and productive lives - mostly because they are able to pay for their drugs without resorting to crime. People tend to view drug users as 'crack whores' and similar types, when in fact many of us have then as friends. Rush Limbaugh was a drug addict.

There is, without a doubt, a drug problem. The real issue is not even about legalization. It's about the failure of the 'war on drugs' Your comments only make my point for me. We have increased penalties, and put more people in jail, and yet the problem is still there.

I'm a problem solver by nature. We've spent 25 years pursuing a strategy that hasn't accomplished anything. That tells me that it's time to try something else, and stop wasting time, effort and money on a program that doesn't work.

Yes.

But ultimately every level of government has term limits. The voters are free to change office holders at any time. While I don't have any issue with term limits, it is ultimately up to the people to decide when to keep and remove their officials.

It goes without saying that the above assumed free and fair elections.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That is true in a perfect world regarding citizens having the right to remove officials by a vote. But in the real world these career politicans are so good as BS artist's that unless you, know from the inside or have intell. as to what goes on in their offices, you'ld think that they were pearly white.

I've seen many elected officials, who'll spend more time keeping the lid on situations and doing damage control, then doing their elected job. Many voters are uninformed or just vote a name versus seeing the whole picture.

All the things you mention are directly caused by the Federal War On Drugs. Make them all legal tomorrow, and you would pull the rug out of the whole criminal infrastructure of drugs. Yes, those determined to destroy their own lives with drugs would still be there, but drugs would be cheap, as affordable as Indian reservation cigarettes, so they wouldn't need to rob for their fix, and no one would be motivated to live life on the edge just to supply them with their fix, since there'd be no profit in it. You want to know the cause of all the ills you describe, just look in the mirror. It's the people who support the unconstitutional war on (some) drugs.

Gee Tod,

Even Montana attributes it's success to the "War On Drugs". Tell your fellow citizens your theories now, sport!!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Montana leads the way in U.S. success in curbing meth
In two years, the state dropped from fifth to 39th in the use of the illegal drug. Its secret: good advertising.
By Tom A. Peter | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the March 27, 2008 edition

Reporter Tom A. Peter discusses the shock messages created by the Meth Project.In 2005, Montanans were leaving home � not because they were fleeing the state for better prospects; they were going to prison. The Treasure State had the fastest-growing prison population in the United States, fueled largely by a methamphetamine epidemic. Half of its male inmates and two-thirds of its female inmates were incarcerated for meth-related crimes.

Today all that's changed. Instead of struggling with America's fifth-worst meth problem, the state now ranks 39th. Teen use has declined 45 percent; adult use is down 70 percent.

Montana's experience is a dramatic example of success in America's war on drugs, especially against meth. In a report confirming the drop, 8.4 million workplace drug tests across the United States showed a 22 percent decline in meth use from 2006 to 2007 and a 19 percent drop in cocaine use over the same period. Overall, according to the report by Quest Diagnostics earlier this month, 3.8 percent of the tests indicated an illicit drug � the lowest level since the Madison, N.J., company began publishing results in 1988.

Two keys to the change in the US are better enforcement strategies and prevention education, experts say. But they caution that the improvements may not last if efforts flag.

"The bottom line is that the war on drugs continues," says David Crane, a professor at Syracuse University College of Law in New York. But "it's like grabbing onto water. Every time we grab onto it, it goes right through our fingers or diverts and goes somewhere else."

For example, the same Quest report that showed a nationwide decline in meth and cocaine use also found a 5 percent rise in amphetamine use, which could indicate that some users are switching to milder drugs.

One factor behind the drop in meth use is better antidrug advertising, experts say.

"It becomes this idea of unselling a product," says Steve Pasierb, president and CEO of the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, the nonprofit group in New York that produced the famous "This is your brain on drugs" public-service announcements. "Instead of driving up perception of benefit, we drive perception of risk. Instead of driving up social acceptance, we drive social disapproval. And what you find is you literally move consumers away from your product."

That's the approach of the Meth Project, a nonprofit Montana group that blanketed television stations, newspapers, billboards, and Internet sites with drug-prevention ads starting in 2005.

"The intention is to treat meth like a consumer product," says Nitsa Zuppas, executive director of the Siebel Foundation, which funds the Meth Project. "If you educate consumers about the attributes of the product then they'll make a more well-informed decision."

One of its TV spots, for example, showed a teenager selling his girlfriend into prostitution for meth money. The project is now active in six states.

The other crucial factor behind the decline of meth use is a shift in federal drug-enforcement strategy, experts say. Efforts now focus less on stopping individual criminals and more on interrupting the business of trafficking drugs.

In the past, "the typical way this was understood was as a criminal case: ... find somebody who was a criminal, collect the evidence that they are indeed guilty of trafficking and related charges, try to find other people who are involved with them," says John Walters, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Now, enforcement efforts are more systematic, placing greater focus on disrupting supply lines, he adds. States and the federal government tightened access to chemicals used to make meth by, among other things, limiting over-the-counter purchases of certain medicines.

The supply squeeze has created a meth shortage, almost doubling its street price over the course of last year.

Still, some worry that these successes may be short-lived. President Bush's proposed 2009 budget calls for big cuts in drug-treatment and prevention programs, says Arthur Dean, chairman and CEO of Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, based in Alexandria, Va.

Nah, you're running into one of the internal inconsistencies of the representative democracy here.

On the one hand, the message is that the people are too stupid, or too distracted, or too uninformed, or too wicked, to make good decisions for themselves, so they need politically astute representatives, whose full-time job is to know about and deal with political matters, to speak for them.

On the other hand, the message is that the people are wise and vigilant and honest and altruistic enough in all circumstances to choose the correct representative for themselves.

(And that's even admitting the completely untenable democratic stipulation that a plurality--which in most cases turns out in real life to be a very small minority--can speak for the whole.)

At least one of those messages is false. Advocates of term limits claim the first is false; opponents of term limits claim the second is false.

In real life, of course, it's a false dichotomy because it's based on false premises.

It cracks me up the way the Ladies Guild uses "unconstitutional" as a synonym for "policy I don't like"........ignoring the real world definition of the term

C'mon, isaac...did you even read that article?

It makes Tod's argument, not yours!

Notice how they really wanted to be able to say that "better enforcement strategies"--I'm guessing more home invasions by jackbooted thugs, although they could conceivably mean something else--were responsible for the change, but they couldn't make it stick? They succeeded in giving "better enforcement strategies" first billing, but it had to share the spotlight with "prevention education;" and most of their article is spent on the successes of education rather than enforcement.

As a matter of fact, the only "success" they were able to come up with for enforcement was raising the street price of meth. That, of course, means that meth addicts who are already past the stage where "prevention education" can affect them will be forced to commit more crimes and victimize more innocent people to get enough money to support their habits. That's not actually a success at all.

From that article, it looks as though "prevention education" is working to reduce the number of people interested in using meth, while "better enforcement strategies" do nothing but increase crime. (Which may--who knows?--be the ultimate objective after all: people who are scared of increased crime are more willing to give up their liberties to the government in exchange for promises of protection.) So...maintain the "prevention education" and legalize meth, and you get the best of both worlds: fewer people becoming addicted to meth, and the existing hopeless addicts able to buy a day's fix for a dollar or two rather than a hundred or two.

I'm surprised you've managed to live as long as you have if you can't interpret media reports any better than that.

That's your read Barak. I read the enhanced penalities for conviction, education and increased LE patrol and enforcement were all factors, and, of course, they are all elements and protocol of the WOD. Thinking I'm making someone's argumant for them might be one slant but spinning the article to suggest it states something it does not, is rather weak.

PS..You equate life's longetivity in correlation to how one interprets media reports? WOW...how long does one live if they spin them the way you do?

Yep Tod...You keep on campaigning in Montana that the WOD ain't working and the government should stay out of it. After all the real solution lies solely with the moms and dads!!Barak, and of course, Hawkeye, who adopted Barak's wisdom, stand for the proposition that if mom and dad give permission for their kid to use...why should the government intervene? I guess they didn't factor in mom and dad being major users themselves. Or, they did, which would merely serve to magnify their silliness and clouded judgement.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



Keep Montana kids safe, keep families drug-free

Preventing drug abuse prevents child abuse and neglect.

Yellowstone County statistics reconfirm the connection between parental drug addiction and harm to their children. Among 109 civil abuse and neglect cases filed by the Yellowstone County Attorney's Office in a year, 60 percent involved neglect because of parental methamphetamine use. Another 10 percent of all cases primarily involved parental alcohol abuse. Parental drug addiction also is a factor in some abuse cases.

Julie Pierce, a deputy county attorney who works with the Yellowstone County Family Drug Treatment Court, said the majority of parents in that court are addicted to meth; the rest are addicted to alcohol. This week, the court was working with about 10 families and 20 children. All of the families landed in the treatment court because parents' addictions contributed to child abuse or neglect.

The county attorney's office also prosecutes criminal cases against adults who harm children. Contrary to popular belief, it's rare that the person attacking a child is a stranger; usually it's someone the child knows, according to Deputy County Attorney Rod Souza. Assault cases against children often involve young adults who have little training in parenting, Souza said.

The 2007 Montana Legislature and Gov. Brian Schweitzer recognized the harm that meth causes to children by passing and signing Senate Bill 85, which adds methamphetamine to the state's child endangerment statute. It is now a felony to have meth or attempt to manufacture it anywhere that a child under age 18 is or reasonably might be, such as a house, apartment building or motel room. This endangerment statute gives prosecutors an extra tool to protect children from meth and provides a penalty for those who expose children to the drug: up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine, or 10 years if a child is seriously injured.

Last year, the state Child and Family Services Division substantiated 1,154 cases of child abuse or neglect. The number was lower than the previous year, but it still reflected an increase of 257 cases over the 2002 total. Also in 2006, the division received 26,852 calls related to abuse and neglect, entered 15,161 reports, initiated 8,905 investigations and placed 1,800 abused or neglected children in care outside their homes.

Dozens of people gathered Tuesday evening on the Yellowstone County Courthouse lawn to raise awareness of child abuse and neglect. Commissioner Bill Kennedy read a proclamation from the County Commission calling for the community to "join together to raise awareness of the prevention of child abuse and strengthening families."

The crowd marched through downtown, listened to children's music and speeches and lit candles to remember the nearly 400 Yellowstone County children who are in foster care. They gathered because abuse and neglect of children is preventable. A major step toward that goal is keeping families - parents, children, anyone who may become a parent - drug-free.

If the so-called "War on Drugs" is a viable way to tackle the problem - then expand it.

Every cop can tell you how many times spousal abuse, fights, murders and childhood abuse are triggered by alcohol abuse.

Start rounding up all of the alcoholics and put them in jail too.

Brilliant idea - eh?

The meaning of the word is very simple. Un means not, as in "authority not found in ..." Constitutional refers to the document on which all legitimate Federal authority rests. Unconstitutional, then, means that the authority for an action is not found within the document on which all legitimate Federal authority rests. If you would like to refute my contention that Federal prohibition laws related to drugs are unconstitutional, you will need to use the document itself to demonstrate that said authority does indeed derive from said document.

PS By "real world," I guess you mean de facto, as in "General Manuel Antonio Noriega was the de facto head of state in Panama." Under that definition of "real world," you are of course correct, i.e., anything the Federal Government can do with the rubber stamp of the Supreme Court is 100% "Constitutional," however in that sense I would always make sure to use quotation marks.

No, I mean as in what the courts in the real world have decided, as opposed to the voices in your heads.


I mean, you're free to believe Ohio State is the national football champion, too. But when you have a rule about how stuff gets decided, and then it gets decided, that's, like, the decision in the real world. The rest is.....well, fantasy.

Like I said, de facto.

I guess it was really draining for Hawkeye in law school as he continually opined to his professor the unconstitutionality of all those SC opinions ruling issues constitutional!

When you stop beating your head against the wall, the pain does go away. Maybe not those voices that still haunt you, but the pain really does go away.

My beef with currently popular political use of prison statistics is the liberal lament that the percentages of ethnic minorities in the prison populations are out of kilter with their percentages in the national population � implying or claiming that ethnic bias is responsible, as if consigning people to prisons is or ought to be a matter of random selection and representation.

As I understand it, people go to prison in some accord with their propensity for breaking the law. An "overrepresented" ethic minority is one with a greater propensity for breaking the law. If all ethnic groups were equally prone to crime, then the prison populations should reflect their relative percentages in the national census.

No liberal wailer wants to admit that an ethnic minority is more prominent in prison because that ethnic minority is more prone to disobey society's laws.

You got that right. My Con Law professor hated me (gave me a B anyway). I'd always stay after class to discuss the unconstitutionality of all the Supreme Court decisions we were studying, and he usually agreed.

I remember very distinctly the class in which we discussed the ruling that said the Federal Government could tell farmers they can't grow certain crops on their own land, even if they never sold it in interstate commerce. Even if they only used it to feed their own animals, and the crops never left the premises, because had they not grown their own feed, they would have had to buy it, and what they would have had to buy might well have been, at some point, in the flow of interstate commerce, so his not buying feed effects interstate commerce, thus making what he grows subject to Federal regulation.

My professor had to admit that this too was unconstitutional, at least in our private conversations. He was a lot more honest than you "living breathing document" guys.

I'd always stay after class to discuss the unconstitutionality of all the Supreme Court decisions we were studying, and he usually agreed
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

That explains some things. If he agreed with you so much in "private" conversation, why'd he hate you so? Did you bring him bad apples everyday? My Con Law professor had no problem with voicing a opinion as to the unconstitutionality of rulings previously ruled constitutional? Why would your professor only admit it in private?

I guess I'd placatingly agree with folks who stalked me,too.

Ken your assessment, at first blush looks rational. But after some educated consideration it would become clear to you that some of our minority population is over-represented in our prisons because we have made them victims of an oppressive environment.
How can these people be expected to pick themselves up by their own bootstraps and fly right when they have no real opportunity in this white mans country.
I myself feel guilty for the harm we have caused these minorities, and I think we should hold them to a lesser legal standard than we do our racially advantaged criminals.
We need to institute parity in our prison system by only jailing the most egregious minority offenders so that our minorities are represented in the prison population to the same percentages that they exist in our communities at large.
Comments as always are welcome.

Years ago, I read of judicial "reasoning" that because a local company had its offices in the same building as another company (which was engaged in interstate commerce), it was also "engaged in interstate commerce." The author alluded to the elevator in that building in his chapter title ("Up and Down [on the elevator] Is Across [state lines]").

I'll assume you were being sarcastic.

Whatever it is you're smoking my friend, please extend your stash to the rest of the Campfire.

I've had enough of affirmative action and you want to extend it to the prison system as well ??????

If ya can't do the time don't do the crime.
Period.

mcmurphrjk, I suspect that you forgot a smiley face. No responsible adult is that stupid......

Ah shucks.... just trying to give y'all something to talk about.

Well, at first blush and under the electron microscope Dr. Howell is SPOT ON IMHO.

We ain't holding anybody down, but their folks like Jessi and the Rev. Al (these ain't my clothes) Sharpton do a real good job of selling them the "poor me" shtick!

My folks weren't even across the pond till 40-50 years AFTER the War of Northern Aggression, we never were slave holders or involved in the slave trade and I feel not one iota of responsibility for or too them, PERIOD. Mine ancestors were farmers and foundry workers that came here for a better life and MADE one for themselves.

For a moment I forgot that you take everything 100% literally, Isaac. No, he didn't really hate me, but he got tired of my arm being raised in class, which is why I approached him after class to discuss the things I didn't get a chance to discuss in class.

While I would be apt to agree with most of what you are saying on this thread, that is just plain wrong and mean-spirited!!!

I guess it was just fantasy thinking that we could be buddies!

PS-I see that your former QB is trying his darndest to pull a Clarett trophy.

Steve...That was a cruel reminder when the man is still undergoing therapy!

No one has ever said that children becoming pregnant is OK, or for children to use drugs. You're either a purposeful liar or really pathetic... neither one is particularly flattering, which is why I suppose no one around here likes you much. The only thing you can seem to add to a conversation is your own prevaricated version of what someone supposedly said. Luckily there are those here who DO indeed read and understand what a person is really saying. Sheesh.

Penny

Sweetie, attention is all he wants. He's a lightweight: by my count, he has posted exactly one message on the Campfire during his tenure here containing thoughtful, original material--and that one was wrong.

DFTFT. Instead, feed Steve_NO and isaac. They're wrong too, of course, but they're also capable of reasoned, intelligent discussion.

OMG! Those poor minorities! They are unable to control themselves and be honest. It's all someone else's fault too. Those evil white people cause minorities to break the law.

I know why OJ got off. It wasn't his fault that he chopped off his wife's head and killed the other guy. Evil white people forced him to!

I think you have great insight. Minorities are never responsible for their own actions. They are just helpless children and under the control of evil rich white people. That explains the mass murders in Rwanda, Mugabe�s destruction of Zim, the attack on 9/11 and every bad thing done by minorities.

I guess you believe that the Klan and Nazis are correct when they say minories are inferior?

I believe that criminals are evil and deserve to be punished and put away to protect the rest of society. Whining about how tough it is to be a criminal is sick. It is a lot tougher to be a victim than a criminal.

You also say that a lot of these criminals are committing victimless crimes. You think that drug crimes and prostitution are victimless and therefore not crimes. Easy access to drugs would increase there usage.

What do you think would be the consequence of widespread drug use? The hard drugs are very destructive to their users and they would not be able to function in society.

Huge increases in accidents would occur.

Druggie�s personalities change. They only care about drugs and cease to be productive members of society. The barriers to immoral behavior would be greatly reduced. This would likely result in a huge increase in bad behavior.

StanV is Isaac's reliable toady, which is why Isaac is the only member here who at least pretends to like him. That's the least he could do in response to such unwavering loyalty.

I'd love to feed Steve_NO and Isaac!

Seriously, Steve_NO and Isaac are honorable men, and whether or not they agree, they will not purposely misrepresent what another has said. They've got integrity.

Penny

Uh-oh... you fell for the troll!!!

Penny

If only that were so.

Crack + Meth + the over prescribing of opiate based pills = More prisons.


Mike

Well, that's my assessment, anyway... I can't claim that I have read every single post in all the threads... Maybe I've been blinded by their charm...

Penny

Troll? That hurts. Was merely trying to provoke a little thoughtful discourse.
@ or so posts later I fessed up. LOL

If being disliked by a couple of monkey's with a football, along with the Crazy 8, is supposed to make me reconsider my stance on subject matter like drugs, imprisonment and cults (or anything else) it ain't working. When responding to this bunch 'heavyweight' doesn't show up on my radar screen....laughable, does.


grin

I couldn't care less what you think about drugs. What you need to reconsider your stance on is honesty and integrity. You're the one who has to look at yourself in the mirror every morning.

Barak's right... you're needy and want the attention, even if it's negative.

Penny

Is this your idea of a scathing remark? If I wanted or needed attention I'd be all over several posters remarks....but, you must not have noticed I disappeared from these pizzing matches by those that really believe they have a grip on reality. I don't want to know what y'all do grip, but it ain't reality.

And by the way, I haven't seen any sign that your twin has ever been right, or correct.

Penny, if you think really hard you can figure out who used to post a lot, took several much ballyhood leaves from the board, made a triumphant comeback, and then quit posting just about the same time Stan started posting. Once you figure that out, you'll know exactly what is going on with Stan.

Perhaps the link below will get us back to the original discussion that was prompted by Tlee's article and is much more interesting than the name calling this thread has deteriorated into.

http://blog.kir.com/archives/NCCD%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf

That pretty much sums it up. We lock up more people and flat do it for the wrong reasons.

Very good article Sir, thanks for posting it.

Think really hard? Dude, the divide between bedrock Americans and RP diciples is stunning.....

� further proof that we need more Campfire Days and weekends. The prototype Raton gathering proved � beyond doubt or dismissal � the incalculable benefits of our getting to know each other, however briefly, in person.

"It becomes this idea of unselling a product," says Steve Pasierb, president and CEO of the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, the nonprofit group in New York that produced the famous "This is your brain on drugs" public-service announcements. "Instead of driving up perception of benefit, we drive perception of risk. Instead of driving up social acceptance, we drive social disapproval. And what you find is you literally move consumers away from your product."

Most experts in this state attribute the success to a strong advertising campaign and an emphasis on education. Reducing demand has always been far more successful than attacking supply. I know exactly what is going on from the law enforcement side.

This war is being won not with arrests and putting more people in jail, but by education and advertising.

Please read my previous post on what the 'war on drugs' means. As I noted, if you consider the war on drugs enhanced sentences, more arrests, etc, it has been a failure. I already pointed out Montana's success with the 'Meth - not even once' campaign.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I like the catch and release concept. For me the hunt/investigation is what's interesting. After i testify and Prosecution/Defense does their duty, i don't care what happens to them. They can either go to a country club or a chain gang.

For those crimes against a victim, the victim for the most part doesn't care either, it's the fact that the suspect was caught. If the suspect has money and there was damage, injuries etc. to the victim, most victims want restitution.

Unless you've seen it you won't believe it, i've had victims, who wouldn't cooperate in prosecution, not due to fear, but due to it being inconvenient to them. They just wanted the suspect caught and their property back or restitution for medical bills, or other damage etc.

We are speaking of the war in drugs from the perspective of enhanced sentencing and higher rates of incarceration. Read the title of this thread. You should probably quote my actual post, rather than imaging what I said.

Let's actually look at what I've said over the course of this thread:

Here's a thought. Educate people about the dangers of drugs. If they are adults, let them make up their own mind, and pay the consequences for their own actions.

I don't think anyone here believes the majority of prisoners are innocent or even victims of society.

How is society served by putting someone with a drug problem in person for 5 or 10 years at a cost of $25,000 per year?

Educating your children about drugs is far more effective than passing more laws which are really aimed at controlling the behavior of adults. Keep in mind the origin of this argument was about adults, and the issue of children was inserted to appeal to the emotional side. It's exactly the same argument used by the anti-gun folks.

Finally, I think we all recognize that drugs have a devastating effect on peoples lives. But can you show any evidence that the increased incarceration rates or the war on drugs has actually made a difference, other than filling up our prisons?

By contrast, areas with active and aggressive drug education campaign has seen a decline in drug use, particularly in the case of minors.

Education may not be as viscerally satisfying as throwing people into jails. But it certainly seems more effective.

The point is that throwing lots of people in jail for drug violations hasn't fixed the problem. Drugs are still available, drug use is still much higher than any other modern industrialized nation. 25 after Nixon's declaration and the war on drugs has accomplished nothing. It has been and abject failure.

It depends on what you consider the 'war on drugs'. Here in Montana we have had a pretty successful education campaign against Methamphetemine - one that I fully support.

think what many of us are dismissive of are increased penalties and longer jail times for users - an outgrowth of the whole 'zero tolerance' mentality. It costs about $25,000 of taxpayer dollars to keep one person in prison per year. Our average incarceration rate in the US is right around one percent of the entire US population. This is about 4x the rate of incarceration of Red China. And yet we still lead the industrialized world in both drug use and crime. By contrast we can look at countries like Holland that have very liberal drug laws, and yet have much lower instance of drug use.

What can we draw from this? Probably that all the increase emphasis on harsher punishment and more time in prison has little or nothing to do with fixing the problem.

I know you get paid to twist other people words, but in this case there's a written record for people to go back an look at.

It has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with socio-economics. The more money you have, the less likely you'll be convicted or spend time in jail. It's actually fairly easy to demonstrate that there is a direct relationship to the likelihood of conviction and imprisonment vs income.

I read most of the thread. The reason this nation has become dependent on prisons, is that it's citizens have evolved into a society that is largely unable, or unwilling, to defend itself. Most people will gladly pay a government to lock up "theats". Don't want to lock 'em up for dope? Don't. They'll end up dead or imprisoned for something else.

From todays Washington post, without comment.

By Keith B. Richburg and Ashley Surdin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, May 5, 2008; A01

NEW YORK -- Reversing decades of tough-on-crime policies, including mandatory minimum prison sentences for some drug offenders, many cash-strapped states are embracing a view once dismissed as dangerously naive: It costs far less to let some felons go free than to keep them locked up.

It is a theory that has long been pushed by criminal justice advocates and liberal politicians -- that some felons, particularly those convicted of minor drug offenses, would be better served by treatment, parole or early release for good behavior. But the states' conversion to that view has less to do with a change of heart on crime than with stark fiscal realities. At a time of shrinking resources, prisons are eating up an increasing share of many state budgets.

"It's the fiscal stuff that's driving it," said Marc Mauer, executive director of the Sentencing Project, a Washington-based group that advocates for more lenient sentencing. "Do you want to build prisons or do you want to build colleges? If you're a governor, it's kind of come to that choice right now."

Mauer and other observers point to a number of recent actions, some from states facing huge budget shortfalls, some not, but still worried about exploding costs.

� To ease the overcrowding and save California about $1.1 billion over two years, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) has proposed freeing about 22,000 prisoners convicted of nonviolent, nonsexual offenses 20 months earlier than their scheduled release dates. He also wants to place them on unsupervised parole, saving the state the cost of having all parolees assigned to an agent.

� Lawmakers in Providence, R.I., approved an expansion last week of the state's "good time" early-release rules to cover more inmates serving shorter sentences. The new rules, which will put more inmates under post-prison supervision, are expected to save Rhode Island an estimated $8 billion over five years.

� In Kentucky, where 22,000 state inmates are housed in county prisons and private facilities, lawmakers agreed to allow certain nonviolent, nonsexual offenders to serve up to 180 days of their sentences at home, and to make it easier for prisoners to earn credit for good behavior. The move could save the state, which is facing a $900 million deficit over the next two years, as much as $30 million.

� In Mississippi, where the prison population has doubled during the past dozen years to 22,600, Gov. Haley Barbour (R) has signed into law two measures that will reduce it: One to let certain nonviolent offenders go free after serving 25 percent of their sentences, and the other to release some terminally ill inmates.

� South Carolina, meanwhile, is looking to abolish parole, in part to slow the growth of its prison population since there would be fewer people returned to prison for parole violations.

Proposals to free prisoners are still met with opposition, particularly from law enforcement officials who fear that a flood of released felons could return to their communities, and from victims groups that worry that justice is being sacrificed for budgetary concerns.

The California plan has drawn criticism from the Legislative Analyst's Office, the state's nonpartisan fiscal adviser, which warned that 63,000 mid-level offenders would "effectively go unpunished, serving little or no prison time" and would not have active supervision.

The proposal also worries local governments and police in California, particularly in Los Angeles County -- home to the nation's largest prison system, which supplies about a third of the state's prison population. "It's kind of like the volcano has erupted," County Sheriff Lee Baca said. "To let out 63,000 prisoners on summary parole -- which means no parole -- is not good policy."

Bob Pack, 52, of Danville, Calif., is particularly disturbed by the prospect of softer punishment forthose convicted of drunken driving. In 2003, Pack's two children -- Troy, 10, and Alana, 7 -- were struck and killed when a drunk driver's car jumped a curb and ran onto a neighborhood sidewalk. The driver had three prior drunken-driving convictions.

Said Pack: "I guarantee you that if this program is fulfilled, somewhere down the road -- it could be three months or a year -- there's going to be a family in court over the death of a loved one, because of someone who got out early."

But for now, state officials are finding themselves under mounting pressure to cut costs and are looking at their rising prison population.

Between 1987 and last year, states increased their higher education spending by 21 percent, in inflation-adjusted dollars, according to the Pew Center on the States. During the same period, spending on corrections jumped by 127 percent.

In the Northeastern states, according to the Pew report, prison spending over the past 20 years has risen 61 percent, while higher education spending has declined by 5.5 percent.

California -- which has the country's worst fiscal crisis, with a potential shortfall of $20 billion -- has seen its prison-related spending swell to $10.4 billion for the 2008-2009 fiscal year. About 170,000 inmates are packed into California's 33 prisons, which were designed to hold 100,000. About 15,000 prisoners are being housed in emergency beds, in converted classrooms and gymnasiums.

Rhode Island's prison population peaked and its 4,000-inmate prison capacity was exceeded in recent years, prompting a lawsuit and a court settlement. "The soaring inmate census has created a crisis here," said Ashbel T. Wall, the state's corrections director. "We've been busting the budget continuously. . . . Our prisons have been packed."

New Jersey is one state making changes out of a desire for more efficiency. Gov. Jon S. Corzine (D) is proposing legislation to expand drug courts to channel more nonviolent, first-time drug offenders into treatment instead of prisons, and also to expand supervised parole. Another proposal would change the parole policy so parolees were not automatically returned to prison for minor drug offenses, said Lilo Stainton, the governor's spokeswoman.

She said that in New Jersey's case, the changes are not budget-driven. "We think this is a more humane and sensible way to treat people," she said.

Michigan is grappling with a massive prison population, mainly because "truth in sentencing" rules make the state less generous about granting paroles. Michigan's incarceration rate is 47 percent higher than that of the other Great Lakes states, according to experts.

Michigan has become one of the few states that actually spend more on prisons than on higher education -- about $2 billion for prisons, and $1.9 billion in state aid to its 15 public universities and 28 community colleges. "It's insane," said Barbara Levine of the Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending in Lansing. "The governor is always talking about how we need to be high tech. But these days, the best career opportunity is to get a job as a prison guard."

In fact, according to Thomas Clay, a prisons and budget expert with Michigan's nonprofit Citizens Research Council, the state government employed 70,000 people in 1980, including 5,000 working for the prisons system. Today, the number of state workers has dropped to 54,000, but 17,000 work for the prisons.

"You've got two decades of failed policies," said Laura Sager a consultant in Michigan for Families Against Mandatory Minimums. She said mandatory sentencing laws and tough penalties for drug offenses in the 1980s "bloated prisons and prison populations, and the taxpayer is paying a very high price."

Now with states struggling with budget deficits, she said, "you have pressures that make it palatable to take a second look."

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/04/AR2008050402054_pf.html

...and the pendulum swings...

The prohibition of some drugs by the federal government is constitutional in the same way that there is a constitutional right to have an abortion. 9 old lawyers told me so.

As I noted, if you consider the war on drugs enhanced sentences, more arrests, etc, it has been a failure
_______________________________________________

Then why has your state done just exactly that, both on the criminal and on the civil side? Carefully read the whole article and not just select tidbits that suit you. Emphasis on "carefully"

Further....are you under the mistaken impression that educational programs are not part and parcel of the WOD campaign?

The prison I was just in for the Kairos weekend has a current population of 2400 women. When I first began doing Kairos there in 1995, there were 1800 women. They are in the process of building a huge new dorm that they say will enable them to double the population. I am trying to imagine what it will be like with 4000+ women there. Right now they get 15 minutes to eat dinner... longer and there's not enough time to feed everyone. I asked the inmates if they're building another kitchen/dining room as well. They said no. They couldn't figure out how 4000+ women were going to get fed. And right now there's a budget cutback... so the prisons are losing staff. Double the prison population but cut back on staff. Hmmmm...

Penny

It's been headed that way for some time now. When I first started practicing law in 2001, it was easier to work your way out of a felony than a DUI. Felony Drug charges could be dismissed by completing "drug court." DUI? EVERYBODY took a hard line on it, and no deals were made. None! Today, the "drug court" concept is being extended to DUI. Why? Well, drug court works, and the numbers prove it. Instead of putting people in prison for drug crime, or just putting them on on probation and telling them "now you stay clean or else"...we are making them learn or re-learn how to get along in life. Make them complete intense drug treatment, not just attend a meeting or two. Make them complete their education or get a GED, and make them get or stay employed, or at least make an honest effort to gain employment. In Birmingham, the success rate is over 80%. It's a year long program, in which they are randomly tested, and the defendant pays for all drug tests and supervision fees, they do 100 hours of community service, go to be evaluated for treatment plans and must follow the court referral officer's plan, get a HS diploma or GED if they don't have one, maintain employment, and a pay $1500 Drug Court fee. If they fail out of the program by testing dirty or picking up a new criminal charge, they're sentenced to jail time as they've already entered a guilty plea. They're usually giving a "3 strikes" on dirty drug tests, but a new charge is an automatic ticket to conviction and jail. If they complete all the requirements and pay all the fees, they are brought back to court and the charges dismissed. It doesn't take a Phd in Sociology, or an accountant to see the plus side for the state financially, and for society as a whole. The same concepts are being used on DUI offenders now who have not been involved in a wreck, injured, or killed someone. The courts started to realize that punishments for DUI were far exceding the harm done when nobody was hurt or killed. People were losing their jobs, careers, marriages etc when they'd hurt nobody. Again when the defendant gets to stay out, is forced to work, and pay for his own rehabilitation, everybody wins. It doesn't work for all, but it's a dang sight better than just locking them up for a while and having the citizens pay the bill...and it creates room on the pen for those dangerous types that really need to be there for a good long time.

"It has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with socio-economics. The more money you have, the less likely you'll be convicted or spend time in jail. It's actually fairly easy to demonstrate that there is a direct relationship to the likelihood of conviction and imprisonment vs income"


there is an even more direct relationship between likelihood of conviction and imprisonment vs. guilt.

in other words, if you don't do the crime in the first place, your socioeconomic status is irrelevant.

and people who have substantial legal income don't usually indulge in burglary, robbery and drug dealing.....they're busy working.

I wonder how many (if any) perps have ever really tried to make an honest living at a productive legal trade. I can more readily sympathize with failures who've tried, but I suspect that crime is the first and only profession chosen by most criminals.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Got one better then DUI/drugs, child support. I've seen people locked up in jail for being behind on child support. They loose their job while in jail, plus it puts them further behind in child support while in jail, and the citizens have to pay for keeping them in jail.

I don't know about AL, but TN. got out of the probation business at the General & Circuit court level. The state still runs a state parole Dept. but that's for those getting out of the pen.

They've allowed private probation Co's to take over, they're a joke. If that what's Barakistan is about they can keep it. It's all about the money, they will violate over the simplest thing, normally being behind on probation fees. Those on probation have to pay when they come to meet the probation officer, they have to pay for this and for that, it's a racket.

Many don't have a job or can't get a job, alot say, screw it, violate me, i'll set in jail and get three hots and a cot, plus medical care, versus having to pay all the probation money.

It's truly a never ending circle, the probation Co. makes money for themselves and the for the county, but it costs just as much or more to keep the person in jail after they've been violated.

What really is funny is that i've seen the board of directors of some of these probation Co's, they're elected DA's & Sheriff's.

Jim....Is that the Bessemer Drug Court program?

You apparently to dense to actually parse the written word.

Le me spell it put for you yet again.

1. The name of this thread is Prison Nation

2.The discussion has been about how enhanced sentences and longer prison terms have failed to bring down drug use

3. Read the line you quoted above: if you consider the war on drugs enhanced sentences, more arrests, etc

So, starting from the premise that we are speaking of the war on drugs as enhanced sentenced and longer prison terms then it follows that we are, for the purposes of this discussion not including education.

Clear enough for you?

What's interesting is that most of the blue collar criminals actually make less than the poverty level, and would probably do better economically with a minimum wage job. Of course you don't have to pay rent while in jail.

I'd like to see proof of your claims of immediate addiction. I've taken a few classes in drug use prevention and have close friends that deal with addicts for a living and NOTHING official I've ever seen has made that claim. I personally think it's on the order of an old wive's tale until I see something in writing from a good source.

I'll save you the trouble.



http://drugscope.blogspot.com/2006/11/focus-us-myths-about-methamphetamine_30.html



http://science-education.nih.gov/supplements/nih2/addiction/guide/lesson4-4.htm

I was specifically referring to Jefferson Co. Birmingham Division. Jefferson Co. Bessemer Division is actually a separate judicial circuit even though it's in the same county. I don't know anything about Bessemer's. Bessemer is cliquish, and if you aint from there, they don't want you there, and you'll get screwed bad. I went there twice, and once got shafted by a Circuit Judge, and once the DA tried to and I saw it coming and headed it off. So, after that, I stayed away when I was in private practice. Most any Birmingham lawyer without Bessemer connections will tell you the same thing. Why do you ask?

The reason I cited Birmingham's is because it was the first in the state. The judge that helped me get started as a green lawyer was the judge of drug court and he brought drug court to AL. He's retired from the bench now and works for Sue Bell Cobb, the Chief Justice of the AL SC, consulting with DA's and judges around the state setting up drug courts. Sue Bell, wants every circuit to have a working drug court by the time her term is up.

SteelyEyes, prior to working in IT, I was a Chemist and toxicology. I have yet to see a single, peer reviewed study that proves instant addiction with crack or meth. It is pure BS not supported by a single scientific study.

If anyone on this list can cite a single peer reviewed scientific study to support this contention, let's see it.

Methamphetamine (n-methyl-1-phenyl-propan-2-amine) is not exactly a new drug. It's over 100 years olds and was in common use until fairly recently. It's been used by soldiers to ward off fatigue since at least WWII, as well as being prescribe for a variety of condition in the 1950s. It is still used medically under the brand name Desoxyn.

Crack cocaine is a freebase form of the drug, so there is an actual chemical difference from cocaine HCL, the most common powdered form of the drug. The freebase is more quickly absorbed into the bloodstream than the alkaloid salt. Otherwise crack is metabolized in the same fashion as any other form of cocaine.

There is still debate about whether or not cocaine should actually be considered 'addictive' since it lacks the physical effects of classical addictive drugs like opiates. There are no physical withdrawal symptom associated with cocaine use, in contrast to methamphetamine There does seem to be a strong psychological addiction present in many users.

Jim...Why can't they cover it all merely in the penalty portions of their statutes as Va and other states do? Why fund a new court when it can be part and parcel of the penalty portion of criminal statutes?

Bessemer began it's Drug Court in 2001 and many states have been looking at it and some, like Va, implemented a variation of these type programs as a possibility under our penalty statutes. I've given you a quick glance below.(summarized of course)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://virginiacriminallawyers.vatrafficlaw.com/pages/drugs.html

SteelyEyes,

You updated your post as I was posting.

While the scientific studies clearly falsify (i.e. render false) the contention that one use can lead to addition, you won't hear that because it doesn't play into the government propaganda. While no one wants to see people destroying their lives, lying is apt to have unintended consequences in the future Once people figure out that they don't become addicted instantly, not only are they probably more likely to use again, but they are also likely to disregard the true dangers of drugs.

Yeah, but the hours suck on minimum wage jobs, and you got to take orders from the man (although its usually a black woman here, but you know what I mean). Working around hot grease, shoveling dirt in the New Orleans heat, working on a flat roof where its over a hundred degrees, working in a hot nasty shipyard for a lousy fifteen bucks an hour.....euchhhhhhh. And BTW, they pay ten bucks a hour for fast food help here. With a signing bonus. Not enough to entice the gangstas away from their glamorous lifestyle.

Bob, I'm not sure if this answer's your questions. Our statutes regarding courts enable the DA to have prosucutorial discretion in deferring prosecutions on those charged with crimes. Drug Court and Deferred Prosecution, by law in AL, are within the discretion of the DA. A new court is not created in actuality. An existing judge handles the caseload and administers the program. In AL the Rule of Criminal Pro. say that you can plead guilty, but until your sentenced the court retains jurisdiction and may set aside the plea. Put in real simple terms, thats the legal pegs we hang our hats on. The judge that runs drug court in Jefferson County is a District Judge. In AL, this is where all prosecution at the county level begin. They have exclusive jurisdiction over misdemeanors, and can hold preliminary hearings on felonies, and accept felony pleas, but it's not a trial court. All drug cases are run through his court to see if they qualify for drug court. He handles a caseload of other cases too, but they divide the work among 3 district judges so the remainder of his caseload is small. The funding comes from the fees paid by the defendants. In Jefferson County it's self sustaining.

Does that answer what you asked?

Yes it does. In essence, you're state is not much different than ours if your drug court isn't really a seperate drug court. Actually, there's very little difference in the 2 states except our ACA's don't have the discretion your state seems to provide your ADAs.

Yeah, technically, it's not a separate court. It's a program administered by an existing court. AL law is very clear in that the DA has sole discretion. More than one judge has had a writ of mandamus handed down for allowing a defendant to go through drug court/deferred over the DA's objection. If the DA says no, the judge has no jurisdiction to override that. The key, and this is also covered in our statutes, is the the DA should put the qualifying and disqualifying criteria down in writing and stick to it. It's when they start cherry picking for the programs. Each county that has a drug court runs it very differently. Some, for small drug cases even have their fees and community service reduced, and a "non-plea track" where they don't even enter a guilty plea, so if they drop out, then they are back at square one. Those are rare though. And as you can imagine, change like this where it's percieved as "easy on crime and criminals" is slow going in the rural areas of the state...the areas that need it most!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
How many seperate courts do you have within your prosecution district? We have a county here (Rutherford) that has three within the General Sessions Court system, a DUI court, a Drug court and a Domestic Violence court. I know some people who work in that county, it's all you can do to keep up on the court docket.

I had the "privilege" of interviewing one of this countries first crack "cooks" back in the 1980's. I never forgot one of her statements. "If you is weak enough to try it, you ain't strong never gonna be strong enough to quit.".

If you don't think crack is addictive, you are living a universe "far,far away". I don't care what somebody "told" you.

Once again, I guarantee that if you slipped some crack into my morning glass of OJ I would be no more inclined to get another fix than I am right now. Less so, even.

Those who are addicted to drugs are addicted because of who they are as individuals, not because of the drugs.

Kinda' what she said, ain't it? Although carck is not soluble in most liquids, I understand your statement, but I guarantee that if you used crack, or meth, or heroin a few times, you would MISS it, whether you liked it or not.

Missing it, abusing it, an being addicted to it are different things. I'm not saying that drugs aren't addictive, just that becoming addicted is a change to your brain that takes quite a bit of time and drug use. Nobody is addicted from the first hit of ANY drug. It's just not biologically possible.

I've known a couple people that used crack pretty extensively and when they lost everything they had they stopped. No treatment or any outside help. Just wrestled with it and stopped.

All treatment amounts to is behavioral modification and teaching coping skills that don't involve self medication. Some people can do that themselves, most others can't but treatment isn't magic.

Psychologically addictive? That seems to be the case in some users. Physically addictive in the same way as opiate or amphetamines? No.

Instantly addictive after a single use? It's not in the literature.

I worked as a associate researcher for two separate Federally funded studies on drug use and drug addiction - one on methamphetamine and one on cocaine. As I previously noted, what was amazing to me is the number of addicts who are able to function in society. There are numerous examples of binge cocaine users - people who could use for extended periods of time, and then stop without any real effects or withdrawals. This is not the case with drugs like opiates that do produce physical symptom of withdrawal

I'm not basing my opinion on what someone told me, but on both studies published in professional journals and collating data collected from thousands of drug users.

Again, cite one peer reviewed scientific paper that shows addiction from a single use. I'll admit that while I spent over 10 years years at Corning Laboratories and Nichols institute as a toxicologist and analytical chemist, I haven't worked in that field for 14 years. So if you can provide a study to support you contention, I'd be very interested.

The realities of drug abuse are bad enough that we don't have to invent stuff.

Stan, when you salute the NeoCon flag, you gotta stop smacking your forehead so hard, I think it's causing concussions..............



Casey

I watch the Angola prison rodeo special every time it runs and think there's a prison with no heat or air conditioning where the inmates raise their own food and work. Instead of all the States having their own prisons, why can't we have all of them down where it's warm and save the heat and ac costs. Why, they could grow their own food and maybe even sell surplus to pay for their other expenses. Instead of auto manufacturers sending their factories to Mexico for cheaper labor costs, why can't auto plants be staffed by inmates. Making license plates is the tip of the iceberg, why not make the whole car? Teach them something that will get them a job when they get out.

"Stan, when you salute the NeoCon flag, you gotta stop smacking your forehead so hard, I think it's causing concussions.............."

LOL! that's close Casey, but not quite what I invisioned.

Remember Benny Hill's salute with the spike helmut

Easy enough to assert, hard to prove! Lots of people in rehab that unwittingly became addicted to otherwise "legal drugs".

True. I should have said "recreational drugs." Rush Limbaugh, for example, became addicted to pain medication. He, however, was not in search of a high, but relief from pain. He is not the type to seek out a drug induced high and become addicted to that high, so that's not what I was referring to.

PS A friend of mine was addicted to Afrin when I was in High School. It manifested itself in an inability to breath through his nostrils unless he, more and more frequently, sniffed the stuff. I too became addicted to this stuff, but was determined to break out, and did so with the assistance of a prescription cortisone nasal spray, which is non-addictive, and which I stopped using as soon as the Afrin addiction was resolved. There is no high associated with this type of addiction, however, as you rightly point out.

Instantly addictive physically? Of course not. Junkies describe crack as "one thousand times better than sex". They LIKE it. They like it enough to do it again, and again and again. Before long they have to do it just to feel mormal. Heroin drowns any sense of worry. Meth is simular to crack, but longer lasting, with a dose of "energy" and paranoia thrown in. Name your poison.
Most of us have the self control not to try it and obviously would not do it again if forced or tricked into doing so. Those that don't are likely to be addicted, whether physically, phycologically or whatever, from the first hit.

While not a "peer reviewed scientific paper" can 26 years of seeing it in person count as a "study"?

As I stated earlier (and back to topic), it really doesn't matter whether you lock these guys up for dope, or not. The ones that aren't going to quit, well...they're not going to quit, and they'll end up in prison, or dead, anyway.

Of course not. That's just anecdotal. Where's your control? Have you eliminated outside factors? Do you have raw data? Can I replicate your results?



Exactly. So why create a system that removes the profit motive for dealers? And why pay to incarcerate them if it isn't going to make any difference. The argument for legalization is quite simple: As you note, those people aren't going to quit. They will get their drugs, whether legal or illegal. By making them illegal you raise the price and make it profitable for drug dealers, who then have a real incentive to make sure as many people as possible are users and addicts. By making drugs expensive, you encourage those who are dependent on them to resort to crime in order to obtain their fix.

If incarceration works, why do European countries with relatively lax drug laws have low rates of drug use and low rates of drug crime?

Again, it becomes a question of what your goals are. Do you want to reduce drug use and drug related crime? Or do you just want to punish people?

We agree on the problem, GEEK.

I'm gonna have to go you one further. Addict A is addicted to pain meds, and sees several docs to keep scripts. All legal, but he's still an addict. Addict B got hooked the same way, but now buys his pain meds illegally off the street because his docs got wise to him, or he didn't know how to work the pharmach systme. Addict C is addicted to alcohol. Legal to buy no scrip needed. Addict D played around with Coke/Crack/Meth at a party, and after a few times got addicted and now buys it and uses regularly. 4 addicts. 2 "legally addicted", 1 "legally addicted" but now forced to purchase illegally, 1 whose use and addiction were "illegal" from the outset. Is it your assertion that Addict D is of low character because of this, and that the other "addicts" are mere victims? What if the alcoholic lives in dry county and illegally possesses alcohol even though it's legal where he buys it? Does that change his character as a addict?

Not every recreational user gets addicted. Not every drinker become an alcoholic. Not a soul sets out to become an addict.

TRH, are you going to sit there and tell me that you've never ingested an illegal substance in your life? Never had a friend give you some of his scrip pain pills for some pain. Never once tried marijuana in your early years?

Does AL. have any state governed medical program? We've got TNcare, it's turned into a Dr. shopping program for some with painkillers. Shortly after the state started the program, they had to create a LE Div. to keep up with the fraud and such from both Dr's & patients.

.280Rem,

I'm not TRH, but I can say I've never smoked, drank, done any drugs of any kind including marijuana, and no pain pills from a friend.

Though with several broken bones, stitches, smashed fingers etc., I gladly took the pain meds prescribed by the doctor.

You probably don't believe it, but it's the truth. I have friends and family that have managed that same path. Sadly everyone thinks that to have fun and live life to the fullest you have to spend part of your life drunk, high, wasted, or even addicted.

Henry, I don't think you'd lie to me here. I suspect you're from an older generation though. Nobody chooses to be addicted though. Ten 21 year olds go out on their Birthday for their first drink...Some might choose to never do it again, some will drink socially and never have a problem, and a couple will become addicts before they know it. Addiction is a disease. I'm convinced it's part of the human condition. Some people are addicted to positive things such as exercise, or work...both of which can still become a problem if you're addicted. Wouldn't you agree? Still, they're not viewed the same as a alcoholic, or addict addicted to pain meds due to chronic pain, or the "street addict". Still, at it's roots, addiction is addiction.

I'm not real sure of anything like that here.

Since this is about Prison Nation......you that argue that drugs are light duty (harmless?) and mostly victimless.....you who would like to see a change of law legalizing, or reducing the sentences are not suggesting that the first time a 'user' is finally busted means a felony conviction and prison term, are you? From what I've seen and read it takes flagrant and repeated trips to the judge to see the inside of a prison. Unless it's a drug traffic bust.....then it's adios amigos.

We keep defining deviancy down and we eventually hit bottom.

.280Rem,

I can agree that nobody chooses to be addicted, but they surely choose that first drink or drug. It's like the recent news story about those kids killed by that guy for breaking into his empty neighbors house. Did they deserve to die for that, NO! But they chose to rob that house and put themselves in that situation, not realizing how tragic the consequences could be.

Same with drugs and alcohol. I always thought, better safe than sorry. I might have been in that "and a couple will become addicts", group. I have many extended family members that never had even the slightest problems with alcohol or drugs and those few that couldn't control it. Would I have been one of those few?

I'm 52, but I know and work with public high school kids who are virtually surrounded by classmates regularly using alcohol and drugs, who say no to those things. Some just aren't interested, with some it's their dedication to athletics, others have religious reasons, and a few have suffered at the hands of parents/family on drugs or alcohol, so they in turn never touch the stuff.

If I never rob a house, or try addictive substances, I never have to worry about the painful consequences that can follow. I've watched too many friends truly suffer. I'm not looking down on anyone, just unbelievably grateful every day that addiction to drugs or alcohol was something that I would never have to worry about.

Medicaid is the state governed program in Alabama. It is for indigent care. People too lazy to work long enough to get SSI and for uninsured teens and immigrants having babies. Medicaid also covers dependant children. I would give ANYTHING if our Blue Cross covered what these patients get. 100% of EVERYTHING is covered except for a $1 or $2 co-pay for medications. No deductibles for hospital admissions, dental service and vision are included as well. Our Alabama Medicaid program offers more coverage than any other plan in the state. There is also a state governed program called All-Kids for dependants of the uninsured. Excellent state funded plan that requires the parents to pay small deductibles and co-pays with excellent coverage.

Yeah, that's what I'm telling you. I guess that makes me pretty uncool, huh? When I was 16 I did try a plain old cigarette. Hated it, and never tried another. Tried a pipe and cigars, too, but always had a sore throat the next day, so never picked up the habits. As for prescription meds, my dad's a doctor, so the cabinets in the house were full of them, but I only took them when he "prescribed" them. I put the word in quotes because he prescribed them by just handing them to me and telling me the dosage. Kind of informal. I've always been one to want to put as little non food stuffs in my system as possible. Go figure.