Reform of Man Min Sentence for Crack

[ElanthianSiren]

Obama seeks to change crack sentences
Wed Apr 29, 4:33 am ET
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration is asking Congress to close the big gap in prison sentences for dealing crack versus powdered cocaine, a law that critics say is unfair to blacks.

Such sentencing reform efforts tend to focus on lowering the mandatory minimum sentences for crack cocaine possession, but in prepared testimony to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs, Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer did not spell out exactly how the administration hopes to make the law more fair.

"The administration believes Congress' goal should be to completely eliminate the disparity in prison sentences between crack cocaine and powdered cocaine," Breuer said in written testimony to be delivered Wednesday.

Federal law now has what lawyers call a "100-to-1" ratio for cocaine sentences, in which a person selling five grams of crack faces the same five-year mandatory minimum sentence as someone selling 500 grams of powder cocaine.

Critics of the law say it unfairly punishes black offenders, pointing to statistics showing 82 percent of federal crack cocaine convicts were black, while nine percent were white.

President Barack Obama had called for such a change while campaigning for the White House.

Breuer said the government should focus on punishing drug trafficking networks, like the cartels wreaking havoc in Mexico, and those whose crimes include acts of violence.

The Obama administration is also seeking to increase drug treatment, as well as rehabilitation programs for felons after they're released from prison.

While politicians often support laws lengthening prison terms for various crimes, it is rarer to try to reduce sentences, in part out of concern they may appear soft on crime. But recently, some states have been moving on their own to temper long-standing "get tough" laws.

In New York last month, state leaders reached an agreement to repeal the last vestiges of the Rockefeller drug laws, once seen as the harshest in the nation. Kentucky enacted changes that would put more addicts in treatment, and fewer behind bars.

The Justice Department is working on recommendations for a new set of sentences for cocaine, and Breuer urged Congress to overhaul the current law, written in 1986 at the height of public concern about crack use.

Since then, Breuer argued, prosecutors' views of crack cocaine has evolved to a more "refined understanding" of crack and powdered cocaine usage.

He also suggested that until such changes are made, federal prosecutors may encourage judges to use their discretion to depart from the current sentencing guidelines. Such departures are rare in the federal courts.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Saw this this morning and thought of some of the more spirited discussion we've had on this board about this topic. I'm disappointed at how they slanted it, (the AP article), when IMO mandatory minimums usurp judicial authority, no matter what crime they address, and steps toward removing them are steps in the right direction.

[Fallen]

I've no strong feelings as to this issue in particular, but I believe mandatory minimums are actually a good thing. It is an extremely strong deterrent for me to commit certain crimes knowing that regardless of the situation, I WILL be going to jail if caught. Is crack involved in more criminal cases than other drugs? I have to imagine it is. Perhaps they targetted the drug because they found that more crimes are commited by people under the influence of crack than any other substance. I don't consider a law inherently racist because mostly black people are breaking it.

NOTE: I am just posting speculations. I have not spent hours reading through Wikipedia/Googling the subject.

[ElanthianSiren]

California is not a shining example of why man minimums are great, unless you like the idea of prisons so overcrowded with petty crime that they lack resources to deal with real threats.

The government may also choose to increase penalties for cocaine powder, which wouldn't address the concern of mandatory minimum sentences. I'd be disappointed then, as I hope the politicians will stop covering their asses and return the power of judges to judge.

[Rocktar]

Yano, I would like to see a lot of the minimum sentances for minor drug crimes reduced. I would also like to see a lot more rehab for offenders and some kind of attempt to help break the cycle of addiction. I would like to suggest possible cold turkey rehab for such people, possibly involving a public flogging and say, 28 days in the stocks. You know they would be clean then AND you know they would remember the following, to quote Counselor Mackey:

“Drugs are bad... mmmkay.”

http://www.youthink.com/quiz_images/quiz1262outcome4.gif

[Warriorbird]

Portugal's apparently had pretty good results with drug legalization.

[Bhuryn]

I look at drugs and obesity the same way. If you want to be fat or you want to be cracked out, go for it. All the war on drugs does is make things worse.

Prohibition didn't work, neither does the war on drugs.

[waywardgs]

Prohibition didn't work, neither does the war on drugs.

^
this.

Furthermore, it seems like every time we "declare war" on something, we get more of it. War was declared on cancer by Nixon, thirty years later the problem is even worse. Reagan's war on drugs has resulted in unprecedented wealth for high-level drug dealers and a massive increase in drugs on the street. War on terrorism? Eh, there hasn't been an attack on american soil since 911, but there sure has been PLENTY of terrorist activity throughout the rest of the world. Odd little catch-22, seems to me. The words "we declare war on xxxx" should be eliminated from public discourse. It doesn't encourage thoughtful consideration and problem-solving, just blind retaliation. Which always turns out poorly.

[Mabus]

Reagan's war on drugs has resulted in unprecedented wealth for high-level drug dealers and a massive increase in drugs on the street.
Nixon coined "War on Drugs" (1969), which Reagan picked up later. Nixon also pushed passage of the Controlled Substances Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act), which is still the law by which the federal government makes a drug illegal.

I stand against Mandatory Minimums for all crimes, as it removes the ability of a judge and jury to decide the mitigating circumstances surrounding the criminal and criminal act. It also removes their ability to creatively sentence the criminal to a sentence that may be more productive (and possibly less expensive) for society.

[Parkbandit]

I look at drugs and obesity the same way. If you want to be fat or you want to be cracked out, go for it. All the war on drugs does is make things worse.

Prohibition didn't work, neither does the war on drugs.

If drug addicts didn't effect others, I would agree.

[Mabus]

If drug addicts didn't effect others, I would agree.
In what ways do they affect others that are already not illegal, nor affects that are (or similar to) ones that could exist without the drugs?

[waywardgs]

Nixon coined "War on Drugs" (1969), which Reagan picked up later.

Noted, and that actually makes sense. :)

[Mabus]

Noted, and that actually makes sense. :)
I am an old fella, what can I say? I actually remember Nixon...

[waywardgs]

In what ways do they affect others that are already not illegal, nor affects that are (or similar to) ones that could exist without the drugs?

He's probably going to talk about users who rob for drug money and random violence related to drug crimes- stray bullets and whatnot.

Much of which could be mitigated if drugs were brought into the light, so to speak, and out of the sole jurisdiction of criminal activity.

[Bhuryn]

If drug addicts didn't effect others, I would agree.

Much of the crime surrounding drugs is caused by the war on drugs itself, not the drugs.

Look at the crime that surrounded Prohibition. The mafia years were some of the worst, most violent times in American history. Much of Mafia's power was a direct result of prohibiton -- it's no different now with Cartels, dealers and drugs.

I might feel differently if the war on drugs had actually done anything beyond get people killed, but it hasn't. I can still go to virtually any city in the US and within a matter of hours I could more then likely get my hands on almost any drug I wanted without knowing a single person.

[Warriorbird]

If drug addicts didn't effect others, I would agree.

Legalization does not actually increase the number of drug addicts, shockingly enough. It also increases the number in treatment.

[waywardgs]

This is a fallacy. The only reason that rates of cancer incidence, at first glance, appear to be up is because we actively screen people for cancers now and are better at detecting it. Cancer survival rates are and continue to go up.

I wasn't speaking to survival rates, I was speaking about incidences of cancer- i.e., "more of it." Which IS increasing, not because we screen for it now, but because there are more cancer cases. WHO predicts a potential 50% increase in cancer by 2020. (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2003/pr27/en/). If you compare between recent years, during which according to you there is active screening, the rates are rising. Furthermore, the graph you gave is the survival rates of 9 states in the U.S. I'd say that's a pretty small sample size if you're going to use it to claim victory in the "war on cancer."


Regardless, my point was a bit more esoteric than all this. I was merely pointing out the problematic nature of "declaring war" on random shit. The statement itself, in my opinion, is reactionary and distracting. That was my main point.

[Jorddyn]

Regardless, my point was a bit more esoteric than all this. I was merely pointing out the problematic nature of "declaring war" on random shit.

Let's declare war on wars on stuff.

[radamanthys]

If you do that, I'm gonna declare war on the people who declare war on declaring war.

[Warriorbird]

If you do that, I'm gonna declare war on the people who declare war on declaring war.

SUP DAWG, WE HEARD YOU LIKE DECLARING WAR, SO WE PUT A WAR ON OUR WAR SO YOU CAN DECLARE WHILE WE WAR.

[Sean of the Thread]

I'm so ready for WWIII! CANADA YOU'RE NEXT BEOTCHS!

[Tolwynn]

He's probably going to talk about users who rob for drug money and random violence related to drug crimes- stray bullets and whatnot.

Much of which could be mitigated if drugs were brought into the light, so to speak, and out of the sole jurisdiction of criminal activity.

Alcohol's about as much 'into the light' as you can get, and look what a stellar job the system currently does of handling DUIs.

Make personal responsibility actually enforceable, and then it wouldn't be as much of a problem. Not that anyone should hold their breath over that ever occurring in this country.

[Parkbandit]

Much of the crime surrounding drugs is caused by the war on drugs itself, not the drugs.

I hope you are mugged today by some crackhead. I'm sure it was the fact that it's illegal that he attacked you.. and not that he is just trying to score some more $ for his next rock.



Look at the crime that surrounded Prohibition. The mafia years were some of the worst, most violent times in American history. Much of Mafia's power was a direct result of prohibiton -- it's no different now with Cartels, dealers and drugs.

I might feel differently if the war on drugs had actually done anything beyond get people killed, but it hasn't. I can still go to virtually any city in the US and within a matter of hours I could more then likely get my hands on almost any drug I wanted without knowing a single person.


Using that logic.. nothing should be illegal and everything should be available for purchase. We should just make all drugs legal, prostitution legal, speeding, firearms, etc...

[Keller]

I hope you are mugged today by some crackhead. I'm sure it was the fact that it's illegal that he attacked you.. and not that he is just trying to score some more $ for his next rock.

Poor logic. Your example is based on the premise that X does not have the money for Y. Not that Y is illegal.

What if X was a poor person and Y was food. Should food now be illegal because it causes people without the money to purchase it to rob others?

If not food, what about alcohol? What about spinning rims? What about anything anyone could possibly want but not have the money to purchase?

[Ignot]

Crack destroys entire communities and I don't think PB's example is that bad. Let's be real, crack has a lot of bad things that come along with it. There are wars between rival drug gangs and innocent people get killed in the crossfire. People get addicted to crack and start prostituting or robbing. This is a drug that has far more of an effect on a community then any other. I don't think comparing a mugging for rims is quite the same as a mugging for crack. People don't get insanely addicted to rims.

[Keller]

Crack destroys entire communities and I don't think PB's example is that bad. Let's be real, crack has a lot of bad things that come along with it. There are wars between rival drug gangs and innocent people get killed in the crossfire. People get addicted to crack and start prostituting or robbing. This is a drug that has far more of an effect on a community then any other. I don't think comparing a mugging for rims is quite the same as a mugging for crack. People don't get insanely addicted to rims.

I think the original premise was that you make crack legal and the rival drug gangs go away. The crack is then a lot less expensive, and I'm sure the taxes from the distribution would be used to fund social services for the crackheads.

People rob other people to buy shit they want all the time, I'll still stand by the argument that the fact that people want things enough to commit crimes to obtain them does not rationalize making those things illegal.

[Bhuryn]

Crack destroys entire communities and I don't think PB's example is that bad. Let's be real, crack has a lot of bad things that come along with it. There are wars between rival drug gangs and innocent people get killed in the crossfire. People get addicted to crack and start prostituting or robbing. This is a drug that has far more of an effect on a community then any other. I don't think comparing a mugging for rims is quite the same as a mugging for crack. People don't get insanely addicted to rims.

And you don't think that much of the fighting, and shooting each other over turf wouldn't subside if there wasn't competition for customers? You don't think that the drug being ILLEGAL has anything to do with it's current method of distribution? You don't think that the price has anything to do with it being ILLEGAL?

People are going to use drugs as long as there are people on this earth. As long as people are willing to pay for them, someone will sell them. All the war on drugs does is cost billions of dollars a year to fund and to fund the jails we put the dealers (and users) in. It doesn't prevent people from getting mugged, shot, or killed over drugs. In fact, I would argue it actually increases all of the above.

[Keller]

In fact, I would argue it actually increases all of the above.

Exactly. People will always steal money for shit they want.

It doesn't matter if that shit is illegal or legal. The only thing making it illegal does is make it more expensive. And, on that basis, I'd agree that it likely causes people to steal more often to fund their habit.

[Parkbandit]

Poor logic. Your example is based on the premise that X does not have the money for Y. Not that Y is illegal.

What if X was a poor person and Y was food. Should food now be illegal because it causes people without the money to purchase it to rob others?

If not food, what about alcohol? What about spinning rims? What about anything anyone could possibly want but not have the money to purchase?


Huh? I didn't even talk about crack being illegal or legal.. Are you trying to say that you've never heard of an instance of where an individual who was addicted to crack committed a crime? I want to live in that world.. sounds like a happy go lucky place.

[Parkbandit]

And you don't think that much of the fighting, and shooting each other over turf wouldn't subside if there wasn't competition for customers? You don't think that the drug being ILLEGAL has anything to do with it's current method of distribution? You don't think that the price has anything to do with it being ILLEGAL?

People are going to use drugs as long as there are people on this earth. As long as people are willing to pay for them, someone will sell them. All the war on drugs does is cost billions of dollars a year to fund and to fund the jails we put the dealers (and users) in. It doesn't prevent people from getting mugged, shot, or killed over drugs. In fact, I would argue it actually increases all of the above.


You don't think there is a large amount of the population that doesn't do drugs BECAUSE they are illegal?

[Bhuryn]

Huh? I didn't even talk about crack being illegal or legal.. Are you trying to say that you've never heard of an instance of where an individual who was addicted to crack committed a crime? I want to live in that world.. sounds like a happy go lucky place.

It's about as unlikely as living in a world where ONLY crackheads commit crimes.

[Parkbandit]

Exactly. People will always steal money for shit they want.

It doesn't matter if that shit is illegal or legal. The only thing making it illegal does is make it more expensive. And, on that basis, I'd agree that it likely causes people to steal more often to fund their habit.


I'll be calling bullshit on this.

You have a vast majority of people who are poor that don't steal because of morals and that they abide by the law. Make stealing legal and people would steal more. Make murder legal and you will see an increase in murder rates.

Make drugs legal and drug use will greatly increase.

[Parkbandit]

It's about as unlikely as living in a world where ONLY crackheads commit crimes.


Your are misunderstanding. I never, ever stated that ONLY crackheads commit crimes.

[Bhuryn]

Make drugs legal and drug use will greatly increase.

This is actually the opposite of what's true. Marijuana use in the Netherlands is lower then in the US.

This is pretty old, but it still carries some weight: Thinking about Drug Legalization (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=981&full=1)

Some points of interest:

2721

16th c. Coffee banned in Egypt and supplies of coffee burned--use spreads rapidly.[95]
17th c. The czar of Russia executes tobacco users.[96]
1650 Tobacco prohibited in Bavaria, Saxony, Zurich; the Ottoman sultan zealously executes smokers to no avail.[97]
1736 The Gin Act fails to halt consumption in England.[98]
1792 The penalty for opium selling in China is strangulation.[99]
1845 New York bans the public sale of liquor--repeals law two years later. [100]

1875-1914 27 states and cities ban opium smoking--opium smoking increases sevenfold.[101]
1914 Passage of Harrison Narcotics Act controlling opium and coca derivatives.
1914 The czar bans alcohol--the Bolshevikslift ban in 1924.[102]
1914-1970 Congress passes 55 laws to strengthen Harrison Act.[103]
1918 Special Committee studies Harrison Act effects--widespread smuggling and increased use of narcotics--and calls for stricter enforcement.[104]
1919 Eighteenth Amendment banning alcoholis passed--repealed in 1933.
1919-1933 Use of marijuana, ether, and coffee increases.[105]
1921 Cigarettes are illegal in 14 states.
1924 Congress bans heroin completely--after law passed, heroin replaces morphine in black market.[106]

1937 First federal law against marijuana.
1949 Law enforcement crackdown on non-prescription barbiturates--use increases 800 percent 1942-69.[107]
1955 Shah of Iran bans opium--ban partially repealed in 1969.[108]
1956 U.S. Narcotic Drug Control Act provides for death penalty for selling heroin to minors
1958 Soviet premier Khrushchev raises alcohol prices 21 percent to reduce consumption--he later deems the program a failure.[109]
1959 Campaign against glue-sniffing begins--causes increase in glue-sniffing by1969.[110]
1962 FDA halts legal production of LSD--LSD use skyrockets by 1970.[111]
1965 Amphetamine enforcement intensifies--causes "a boom in cocaine smuggling" by 1969.[112]
1968 Campaign against marijuana use among U.S. troops in Vietnam--soldiers switch to heroin.[113]
1969 New York City increases drug arrests by 9,000--no impact on drug availability noted.[114]
1971 All-out campaign against heroin use inVietnam fails.[115]
1971 900 pounds of heroin seized in NewYork City--no increase in price occurs.[116]
1971 President Nixon declares drugs "America's public enemy No. 1."[117]

1972 The House passes a $1 billion anti-drug bill.[118]
1972 President Nixon declares drugs "America's public enemy No. 1"--again.[119]
1973 Rockefeller's tough drug bill is passed in New York.
1973 President Nixon announces, "We have turned the corner on drug addiction in America."
1975 Malaysia enacts death penalty for drug trafficking.[120]
1975 Singapore enacts death penalty for drug trafficking--a few years later, top drug official says, "Heroin seems to be more widely used than ever."[121]

1977 Bar Association committee concludes that Rockefeller drug law had no effecton heroin use.[122]
1980 300,000 youths in Malaysia are using illegal drugs.[123]
1983 Malaysia toughens death penalty for drug trafficking.
1985 Soviets crack down on alcohol consumption.
1986 Moscow officials lower taxes on alcohol.[124]
1987 Malaysia's 12-foot-high, double-barbed-wire security fence protecting 32 miles of border with Thailand fails to halt drug traffic.[125]
1987 Soviets increase penalties against moonshining.[126]
1987 Legal alcohol production down 50 percent in Soviet Union; hard liquor moonshining up 40 percent; homemade wine production up 300 percent; 200,000 prosecuted for illegal home brewing.[127]
1987 Soviets launch "Operation Black Poppy" to stop opium use--2,000 poppy fields destroyed.[128]
1987 The Russian city of Murmansk bans sale of men's cologne (containing alcohol) until 2:00 p.m., when liquor stores open.[129]
1987 Glue-sniffing doubles among high school students in Soviet Union.[130]
1988 The Senate adds $2.6 billion to federal anti-drug efforts.
1988 Title of Tampa Tribune feature article: "The Joke among Federal Agents: 'We've Turned the Corner on Drugs."'
1989 Secretary of State James A. Baker III reports that the global war on narcotics production "is clearly not being won."[131]

[Ignot]

And you don't think that much of the fighting, and shooting each other over turf wouldn't subside if there wasn't competition for customers? You don't think that the drug being ILLEGAL has anything to do with it's current method of distribution? You don't think that the price has anything to do with it being ILLEGAL?

People are going to use drugs as long as there are people on this earth. As long as people are willing to pay for them, someone will sell them. All the war on drugs does is cost billions of dollars a year to fund and to fund the jails we put the dealers (and users) in. It doesn't prevent people from getting mugged, shot, or killed over drugs. In fact, I would argue it actually increases all of the above.

We aren't talking about drinking beer or legalizing marijuana (which I agree with), we are talking about crack. If you feel that legalizing crack is a good solution to this nation's drug problem then I feel sorry for you.

[Bhuryn]

We aren't talking about drinking beer or legalizing marijuana (which I agree with), we are talking about crack. If you feel that legalizing crack is a good solution to this nation's drug problem then I feel sorry for you.

The war on drugs causes the problems, not crack. History clearly shows this.

[Warriorbird]

Portugal's example shows that, in modern times, drug use does not actually increase with legalization... and more addicts enter treatment.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Using that logic.. nothing should be illegal and everything should be available for purchase. We should just make all drugs legal, prostitution legal, speeding, firearms, etc...

I think we should, and then we should hammer people who harm others while being influenced by said legal products. I don't care if some kid in college does some drug every night, I care if he does it then harms someone or something. I don't think you can stop anyone from doing drugs if they are motivated.

And people who steal today for an illegal substance, would still steal tomorrow for a legal one. It'd just be less people in prison for fluff drug sentences who's only crime was that the drug was illegal. Who cares if they destroy themselves?

[Parkbandit]

I think we should, and then we should hammer people who harm others while being influenced by said legal products. I don't care if some kid in college does some drug every night, I care if he does it then harms someone or something. I don't think you can stop anyone from doing drugs if they are motivated.

And people who steal today for an illegal substance, would still steal tomorrow for a legal one. It'd just be less people in prison for fluff drug sentences who's only crime was that the drug was illegal. Who cares if they destroy themselves?

Why do you hate civil liberties so much?

And if you use the flawed logic that making something illegal is what the problem is... what is to stop at drug use and such? Why not make assault, murder, burglary legal? I mean.. it's been passed off as fact that if you make something legal, then the occurance will decrease. Wouldn't you want less murders?

I can't wait until we can start abusing kids, animals, other people, etc... then the Utopia of freedom will be complete!!

[Stanley Burrell]

I think we should, and then we should hammer people who harm others while being influenced by said legal products. I don't care if some kid in college does some drug every night, I care if he does it then harms someone or something. I don't think you can stop anyone from doing drugs if they are motivated.

And people who steal today for an illegal substance, would still steal tomorrow for a legal one. It'd just be less people in prison for fluff drug sentences who's only crime was that the drug was illegal. Who cares if they destroy themselves?

I don't understand why the fuck the sentencing for crack shouldn't = a coke charge, or visa-versa. What became so illegal about baking soda?

Not that I don't think 90% of narcotics charges are the most ridiculous fucking thing in the world. There are people wallowing in prison because they weren't ritzy enough to afford a purer version of cocaine.

Each time we over-prosecute, it reminds me of countries like Singapore that will chop off your nuts for spitting. Every time we label people as hardcore perpetrators, we're no better than some fourth world country with a severe case of plant product xenophobia.

Although I do think we should castrate people who sell within the school district. But otherwise, calm the fack down people.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Why do you hate civil liberties so much?

And if you use the flawed logic that making something illegal is what the problem is... what is to stop at drug use and such? Why not make assault, murder, burglary legal? I mean.. it's been passed off as fact that if you make something legal, then the occurance will decrease. Wouldn't you want less murders?

I can't wait until we can start abusing kids, animals, other people, etc... then the Utopia of freedom will be complete!!

I don't think it being illegal is the problem. My contention is if it only harms yourself, and not property or someone else, I really don't care if you do it all day, every day. It's debatable what "property" is - if my neighbor doesn't mow his lawn for 2 years, I'd say he's harming someone else (my home value). I just think going to jail for drug use (not robbing or murder or speeding or whatever) is a waste of everyones resources and compounds the problem of identifying the real criminals who commit those crimes you listed above.

[Keller]

Huh? I didn't even talk about crack being illegal or legal.. Are you trying to say that you've never heard of an instance of where an individual who was addicted to crack committed a crime? I want to live in that world.. sounds like a happy go lucky place.

As I saw it:

The original argument is: People should be able to do Y if doing Y doesn't hurt other people.

Your counter-argument is: People do X (rob) to get Y, so Y should be illegal because people doing Y causes them to other others.

My point was that Y could be perfectly normal things. It is NOT the fact that Y is illegal that causes a person to commit a crime, but that they do not have the money to purchase Y. Therefore, you can apply the exactly same argument you made to things like food.

E.g. food should be illegal because people without the money to buy food will rob others to afford it and therefore people who eat food cause harm to people other than themselves.

[Keller]

I'll be calling bullshit on this.

You have a vast majority of people who are poor that don't steal because of morals and that they abide by the law. Make stealing legal and people would steal more. Make murder legal and you will see an increase in murder rates.

Make drugs legal and drug use will greatly increase.

Two things: One, I didn't come up with this crack argument and definitely do not believe crack should be legal. I'm merely making the appropriate arguments because, well, I like to argue.

Two, I think you could find studies showing that once people cross the "criminal" threshhold, they are less likely to stop short of committing another crime because they've lost that moral purity. So, if you call someone who smokes pot a criminal, they are more likely to try LSD because they've already broken the law. Or, more relevant to our conversation, a crackhead will be more likely to rob people to pay for their fix because they're already criminals.

Third (I know, I only said two -- but this is kind of like 2 again), make drugs legal and you'll see less drug use. Why? Take my life for example. Since I was old enough that my friends were doing drugs, my mom told me that there was a difference between pot and LSD. Instead of saying pot = LSD because they are both bad for you and are illegal, I was educated on why pot is bad, and why LSD is way worse. I think that if you take a practical approach to drug-use prevention, you'll see a lot less drug use. As the saying goes, honesty is always the best policy. If you tell me pot is terrible for me, and LSD is also terrible for me. And I see that at least the last 3 presidents smoked pot, what will stop me from smoking pot? Shit, I can smoke pot and become president! And once I've smoked pot, and it was bad and illegal, should I have reservations about trying something else that was similarly "bad and illegal"? I suggest most people wont.

[Parkbandit]

As I saw it:

The original argument is: People should be able to do Y if doing Y doesn't hurt other people.

Yes.. and I agreed


Your counter-argument is: People do X (rob) to get Y, so Y should be illegal because people doing Y causes them to other others.

Here's where you went astray. I agreed with the original argument.. legalization is fine if it doesn't affect other people.

[Warriorbird]

Once again... by the most recent modern evidence... legalization does not increase drug use and it increases the number of addicts in treatment.

[Back]

SUP DAWG, WE HEARD YOU LIKE DECLARING WAR, SO WE PUT A WAR ON OUR WAR SO YOU CAN DECLARE WHILE WE WAR.

Damn, beat me to it WB. Was wanting to do a post like this...

YO DAWG WE HEARD YOU LIKE TO GET HIGH SO WE PUT DRUGS IN YO DRUGS SO YOU CAN GET HIGH WHILE YOU GET HIGH

[Keller]

Here's where you went astray. I agreed with the original argument.. legalization is fine if it doesn't affect other people.

So you agree that legalizing crack wont cause crackheads to rob people and would likely reduce the number of crackheads robbing people because (1) you would remove the "criminal" stigma from their self-concious, making them less likely to commit further crimes and (2) make crack less expensive?

[Parkbandit]

So you agree that legalizing crack wont cause crackheads to rob people and would likely reduce the number of crackheads robbing people because (1) you would remove the "criminal" stigma from their self-concious, making them less likely to commit further crimes and (2) make crack less expensive?

No I do not agree.

1) Drugs affect people's judgement and "allow" them to do very stupid things.
2) There will always be a negative stigma for anyone that is high.. much like there is a stigma for anyone who is drunk.
3) Making items less expensive /= free.. and there will always be someone who can't quite afford it. And do you really believe that if our government ever legalized any of these recreational drugs.. that they wouldn't put a HUGE tax on them?

[Keller]

No I do not agree.

1) Drugs affect people's judgement and "allow" them to do very stupid things.
2) There will always be a negative stigma for anyone that is high.. much like there is a stigma for anyone who is drunk.
3) Making items less expensive /= free.. and there will always be someone who can't quite afford it. And do you really believe that if our government ever legalized any of these recreational drugs.. that they wouldn't put a HUGE tax on them?

The stigma is the individual's view of themselves. If you're a "criminal", you're less likely to obey other laws.

And your response to 3, really? I understand you need to be right, but that's Tsa'ah levels of logic right there. The majority of the "mark-up" of drugs is caused by the costs associated with its illegality. Whether that is the inefficient transportation and distribution, the risk each chain takes, or the monopoly that cartels have -- I can't imagine that refining cocaine and processing it into crack is expensive in the least. You could put a 500% tax on it and you'd likely still come under the current market price.

[Methais]

Anyone else in the mood for pancakes?

http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/625406/2/istockphoto_625406_stack_of_pancakes.jpg

[Parkbandit]

The stigma is the individual's view of themselves. If you're a "criminal", you're less likely to obey other laws.

And your response to 3, really? I understand you need to be right, but that's Tsa'ah levels of logic right there. The majority of the "mark-up" of drugs is caused by the costs associated with its illegality. Whether that is the inefficient transportation and distribution, the risk each chain takes, or the monopoly that cartels have -- I can't imagine that refining cocaine and processing it into crack is expensive in the least. You could put a 500% tax on it and you'd likely still come under the current market price.

I've edited my response to you a number of times.. then I realized you simply aren't worth my time.

[Warriorbird]

No I do not agree.

1) Drugs affect people's judgement and "allow" them to do very stupid things.
2) There will always be a negative stigma for anyone that is high.. much like there is a stigma for anyone who is drunk.
3) Making items less expensive /= free.. and there will always be someone who can't quite afford it. And do you really believe that if our government ever legalized any of these recreational drugs.. that they wouldn't put a HUGE tax on them?

Except... the actual evidence suggests that it doesn't increase drug use and instead increases the number of people in treatment. From a law and economics perspective we also put a tremendous outlay (in resources and law enforcement/judical effort) into the battle that we could be using elsewhere... combatting terrorism, catching illegals (who as as some folks are fond of letting us know do a TON of crime, especially with the rise of MS13), or in putting resources up for treatment of addicts.

[Keller]

I've edited my response to you a number of times.. then I realized you simply aren't worth my time.

That's probably a good idea.

I doubt you have enough time left to make your argument cogent.

If I were you, I'd find something more fulfilling than fighting an uphill battle, too.

[Parkbandit]

That's probably a good idea.

I doubt I would understand much of what you typed anyway, since I have a closed mind and a limited intellectual capacity.

If I were you, I'd find someone more intelligent to debate and discuss political topics with. A new puppy will probably have more to contribute by taking a shit on your rug than I ever would.

I couldn't have said it any better. Good advice, thanks!

[Keller]

I couldn't have said it any better. Good advice, thanks!

Now that you've gathered your toys, you're free to go home. :love: