NationStates Jolt Archive

While looking for information on another thread I kept coming across links with information about the sentences guidlines to do with drug crimes. I have long considered the War on Drugs to be a ridiculous failure set up by posturing politicians interested in boosting their image of being "tough on crime."

Our drug laws are a failure. After twenty-five years of harsh mandatory prison sentences, drugs remain cheap and readily available. Although the laws were intended as a weapon against major drug dealers, they have resulted instead in the imprisonment of tens of thousands of low-level nonviolent offenders—mostly poor African-Americans and Hispanics. They have fueled a staggering growth in our prison population at great taxpayer expense. Far too many children suffer emotionally and financially because parents convicted of minor drug offenses have been sent to distant prisons instead of being given community-based sanctions.

We end up with crap like this:
A federal appeals court upheld the 55 year prison sentence given a Utah man with no criminal record for a minor marijuana charge. The New York Times reported on Jan. 11, 2006 ( "Prison Term Of 55 Years For Drugs Is Upheld") that "A federal appeals court has upheld a 55-year prison term imposed on a Utah man with no criminal record who was convicted in 2003 of selling several hundred dollars worth of marijuana on three occasions. The case of the man, Weldon H. Angelos, a record producer from Salt Lake City who was 22 at the time of his crime, has become a benchmark in the debate about sentencing rules and justice. The trial judge in the case complained in issuing the sentence, which was required by federal statutes, that he thought it excessive, and 29 former judges and prosecutors agreed, in a brief filed on Mr. Angelos's behalf. But a three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a decision issued here late Monday, rejected those arguments. The sentence properly reflected the will of Congress, the court said, and was not cruel or unusual punishment. Mr. Angelos was reported by a witness to have been armed with a pistol during two of the drug sales - and requiring stiffer sentences in cases where drugs and violence are linked, the court said, is legitimate social policy. 'Although the district court concluded that Angelos's sentence was disproportionate to his crimes, we disagree,' the court said. 'In our view, the district court failed to accord proper deference to Congress's decision to severely punish criminals who repeatedly possess firearms in connection with drug-trafficking crimes, and erroneously downplayed the seriousness of Angelos's crimes.' Mr. Angelos's lawyer, Jerome H. Mooney, said the decision would be appealed, either for reconsideration by the full Court of Appeals here in Denver or directly to the United States Supreme Court."

http://www.csdp.org/news/news/mandmins.htm

Does this really help anyone? Is it helpful to our society as a whole? Let me know.

Does this really help anyone? Is it helpful to our society as a whole? Let me know.
Nope. We deal with the 'problem' by sending drug users to...jails full of drugs! Complete madness. We should start an immediate legalisation programme.

Actually, prohibition does help some people: dealers, gangs and smugglers. Just the kind of people we want the law to help.

Does this really help anyone? Is it helpful to our society as a whole? Let me know.

No and no. The current prohibition laws were based in racism. As implied in your OP, they still are racist. Racism is stupid and counter producutive.

I think we should legalize everything, therefore crashing the markets.

Jeezus, why can't politicians understand this will work, even if it might piss off a few of their supporters. Do what's right, not what will get you reelected, you losers.

Think of the money we're spending to lock up people who want to light a joint, eat a twinkie and watch a movie.

Think of the money we're spending to lock up people who want to light a joint, eat a twinkie and watch a movie.

Worse. Think of the money the US spends to do all that due to (largely) forgotten racist reasoning.

Think of the money we're spending to lock up people who want to light a joint, eat a twinkie and watch a movie.
And the tax revenues that could be gained from taxing a legal business, the money no longer in the hands of dealers and criminals, the money spent on police investigations into imports to find nothing...

I think the Drug Czar/Whatever his title is should go on 4chan when it's back up so people can scream "U FAIL AT LIFE!" at him.

The War on Drugs is the biggest failure and money-sink of modern times. All it does is make the streets more dangerous, imprison the innocent and make gangsters into billionaires - oh, and kill a lot of people. For no gain at all.

What we need to do is to get rid of mandatory sentances for Drug users, especially 1st time. I say let the sentance reflect the crime. If you are a hard drug dealer, lock em away, if you tried pot for your first time, don't lock them away.

the drug laws suck. We could make a bit more money if we put a lil tax on those drugs. The everyone's happy.

Watch the Penn & Teller Bullshit episode for the War on Drugs. It pretty much outlines why the thing is one big brainfart. That and the thing, which is already full of bullshit, was started by the president who is most full of bullshit, Nixon.

One of the ways that I look at the drug problem is as follows, in terms of supply and demand. If drugs are legalized, it is easier to make and sell drugs, because the government isn't out to stop you. Thus, with per-unit costs decreasing supply shifts to the right. With the punishments by government removed, there is less disincentive not to consume drugs. Demand shifts to the right.

Now, I'm sure you're thinking that I'm going to say "Keep Drugs Illegal!" I don't. If you want to do drugs, and I do not have to subsidize your habit, then fine, do so. It is none of my business so long as you don't hurt anybody. Not to mention that this drug war only ends up going after the small business areas of the drug world, thus putting more power into the hands of cartels- a barrier to entry, in a sense, that creates abusive drug monopolies. If I had to choose between having a lot of hippies growing pot in their basement and selling it to their friends, or a civil-war causing druglord empire, I'd go for the hippies, thank you.

So, in conclusion, I will say this- If you want to harm yourself with drugs, fine, do so. Just don't bother anyone else with it, and we'll be fine. It's ultimately our responsibility, not the government's, how we deal with these substances.

The effects of the legalisation of drugs from an economic standpoint is one of the possible subjects for an economics essay I have to write this year, and the one that I'll probably choose as well, as it sounds far more interesting than an essay on the optimal interest rate. While I haven't researched it yet, sources are provided which outline both the positive and negative effects of drug legalisation on the economy. I'm actually quite interested in what the negative effects might be, as I can't think of any off hand.

The effects of the legalisation of drugs from an economic standpoint is one of the possible subjects for an economics essay I have to write this year, and the one that I'll probably choose as well, as it sounds far more interesting than an essay on the optimal interest rate. While I haven't researched it yet, sources are provided which outline both the positive and negative effects of drug legalisation on the economy. I'm actually quite interested in what the negative effects might be, as I can't think of any off hand.

Possible public cost related to overdoses, maybe, since doses would be easier to come by. Something only theoretically possible with weed, though.

I always thought that if the share holders of Hostess and Nabisco knew how much they stood to make if pot was legal it'd be legal tomorrow...just sayin'...

Possible public cost related to overdoses, maybe

One time payment. After that, we won't have to pay for the stupid person any more. We won't have to give them jack. They won't get social security, or anything. Bye bye stupid person.

Possible public cost related to overdoses, maybe, since doses would be easier to come by. Something only theoretically possible with weed, though.

It's humanly impossible to overdose with marijuana.

It's humanly impossible to overdose with marijuana.

That's why I said 'theoretical,' someone was going to nitpick me either way. There is an overdose threshold, it's just impossible for someone to actually smoke or ingest that much. It exists, but we're not getting there. So I said 'theoretical.'

A big part of the problem is the federal government's unwillingness to differentiate between various kinds of drugs. There's no way that dealing pot should get you a 55 year sentence, even if you're packing like Schwarzenegger in Commando. Dealing meth, however, ought to get you locked up for a while, because meth is a far more dangerous and destructive drug.

And simply using and possessing should never land you in jail. Forced rehab perhaps, depending on the circumstances, but never jail.

That's why I said 'theoretical,' someone was going to nitpick me either way. There is an overdose threshold, it's just impossible for someone to actually smoke or ingest that much. It exists, but we're not getting there. So I said 'theoretical.'

Theoretically, I suppose if you could refine it into a pill or a injection, you could do it.

That's why I said 'theoretical,' someone was going to nitpick me either way. There is an overdose threshold, it's just impossible for someone to actually smoke or ingest that much. It exists, but we're not getting there. So I said 'theoretical.'

Ah, OK, sorry. It's just that you would have to consume a huge stack of marijuana to overdose.

Ah, OK, sorry. It's just that you would have to consume a huge stack of marijuana to overdose.

*fetches 10 cubic foot bong* Let's try it.

Theoretically, I suppose if you could refine it into a pill or a injection, you could do it.

It would have to be one super crazy refinement type thing, and then you'd have to ask, why?


Well, you don't, because it's only theoretical...but the point is that it's not going to come up with weed.

A failure commensurate with Poland's failure in ww2.

We need more pot! That's the problem! If everyone had enough pot, we'd catch plenty of criminals!

It would have to be one super crazy refinement type thing, and then you'd have to ask, why?

So you can be the most stoned person in history?

In a nutshell, yes. A complete, utter, pissant waste of my tax dollars.

http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/fed-data/heroin-prices.htm

The people I hung out with in High School smoked pot (and did many other things) quite simply because they were easier to get than alcohol.

It's sickening. The entire "war on drugs" is more than a gross waste of taxpayer money, it's ethically repugnant. You can't take away people's rights to do with their bodies as they wish.

Complete waste. I second that you should all watch the Penn&Teller: Bullshit episode about the drug war. Aside from being solidly amusing, their arguments are always valid and backed up.

I've smoked pot pretty much constantly since I was maybe seventeen. I've got a bum hip, ankylosing spondilytis, so I'm in near constant agony. My huge LEGAL perscription pain pills fucking demolish me. Totally unsafe to drive or function on, plus they make me itch like crazy. So, I moderate my pain with a few tokes throughout the day. I function just fine, I'm capable of driving if need be, I don't itch, and then there's the added bonus of me being extra pleasant all the time. All this, with no ill effects aside from me getting a bit fat...

Pot and the occasional foray into my mind on mushrooms is all good. I suppose if someone else wants to be a walking corpse and piss their lives away on meth or into a needle, that's fine too. I probably hate those assholes anyway.

Of course, the entire system is yet another governmental piggy-bank like SS, so nothing is going to be done about it. And cocaine is one drug that's never going to be legal. Ever. It gives us too much of an excuse to exercise power in South America.

I read an interesting book that addresses several conspiracy theories. One of them addresses Marijuana, saying that the criminalization efforts were backed by several major corporations (Dupont is the only one I remember).

They claim that the people who make polyester, paper, and oil-based products wanted to eliminate the hemp plant so they wouldn't have to compete with hemp paper, hemp fabric and hemp oil.

I blame America's overzealous, draconian and ineffective drugs policies for the drug-infested wasteland many parts of it are.

I blame America's overzealous, draconian and ineffective drugs policies for the drug-infested wasteland many parts of it are.

I blame not only that, but a complete misunderstanding of what the substances do. It seems anyone born before 1950 (or born outside of a major city/in the South) thinks marijuana will turn you into a psychopathic murderer.

As I see it, there are three choices

1. Do what we're doing now. A complete and utter failure, which puts billions of dollars into the completely wrong hands.

2. Let the government supply drugs. If they do this as well as they handle everything else it will guarantee that the drugs never get to market, that numerous corporations feed at the trough, and that billions still end up in the wrong hands. Sounds like a potential complete and utter failure.

3. Legalize through medical/social management programs with a privatized supply system. Don't make it easy, but don't make it impossible either. This would eliminate the current difficulties with legitimate medical use. Having said this, it must be recognized, and potential users must agree, that there are drugs which have such serious side-effects that the user must agree to hold society harmless if they are used. Once on the slippery slope, you're responsible for your actions. (Hey, a really unusual thought these days...)

I read an interesting book that addresses several conspiracy theories. One of them addresses Marijuana, saying that the criminalization efforts were backed by several major corporations (Dupont is the only one I remember).

They claim that the people who make polyester, paper, and oil-based products wanted to eliminate the hemp plant so they wouldn't have to compete with hemp paper, hemp fabric and hemp oil.

It wasn't DuPont. Oh, they backed the idea (it was good for them, after all, and they did have a responsibility to look out for the company's best interests), but they didn't start it.

THAT was Hearst. William Randolph Hearst may not be a name quite so familiar any more, but he was THE man in media in the first half of the 20'th century, the Murdoch (and more) of his day. The movie Citizen Kane is loosely based on his life.

Hearst was a genius at business and marketing, no question. One of the things he introduced (he didn't invent it, but he knew a good idea when he saw it and ran with it) was what we now call Vertical Integration, the control and ownership of all the materials that make up your product by the one company. Hearst's product was newspapers, so he owned pine plantations, logging companies, pulping mills, ink plantations and processing factories, in short, everything that went into making a newspaper, from pine tree to Sunday Edition. And since all of those steps were owned by the same company, the only one that had to make a profit was the final sale of the newspaper - everything else could operate at cost. It kept overall costs, both to the company and to the consumer, way down.

Now, in those days you had two types of paper. Wood pulp paper, which is the kind you see all the time nowadays, was inferior, fit only for newspapers, comic books, and other disposable media, since it was rough and cheap and had no longevity. Hemp Paper lasted almost forever, was cleaner, brighter, smoother, but cost significantly more. (As an aside, the Declaration of Independence is written on Hemp paper.) So it was only used for important documents and books.

So along comes this smart guy in the 1920's, a chemist, who works out a cheap way of getting high-quality paper from Hemp cheaply. Not only cheaper than they were using, but cheaper than wood pulp.

For Hearst this is a disaster. His empire is predicated on wood-pulp paper. This new process could cost him millions - 1920's millions.

So, he calls up his owned congressmen, and ll his editors. Through skillful manipulation of the media (he owned most of it, after all) he gets Hemp, the useful, workaday weed grown all over the US for use in rope making, cloth making, paper making and occasionally smoking (though remember that the high-THC varieties we know today did not yet exist) renamed "Marijuana" (actually the name of a cheap Mexican cigarette) and outlawed. He even has the state department convince Britain to exterminate all the hemp in Bangladesh (Literally, "place of the Bang" - Bang being the local word for Hemp) - with the direct causative effect of making modern Bangladesh the hell-hole it is today.

(Of course, the ban has to be rescinded in 1941 - they need Hemp rope for the navy (nylon didn't cut it) - but the ban goes back on on 1945.)

As an excuse, Congress claimed the problem was the "mind altering effects" of marijuana (and no, this wasn't actually hypocrisy. All this was done during Prohibition, so they were being consistent). So, to remain consistent, they have to ban Cocaine (freely available and widely used as a painkiller until then) and Opiates (ditto, but with some regulation due to the perceived addiction problems).

Enter our long nightmare...

SNIP

War On Drugs:Success::War In Iraq:War on Terror

For all of you who give up, I'm saying that the War on Drugs fails at life.

Just like to give you lot an interesting link:

http://www.leap.cc

If you aren't yet completely convinced of the utter futility of the war on drugs, then these guys will set you straight.

Cheers.