daoneandonly wrote:dckingsfan wrote:Of the 2.3+M that are confined we have 300+K that are "drug offenses", 400K+ minor crimes, 400+K not convicted - anyway you cut it is 100s of Billions of dollars wasted annually.
This is incredibly stupid. There is not wiggle room here... there is no nibbling around the edges - it is just stupid. If we took care of our stupid on crime and stupid on drug problem we wouldn't have a deficit or unfunded liability problem.
Curious, why do you dismiss drug offenses like it's nothing? It's criminal, illegal, etc. One of the easiest decisions a person can make in life is to not commit a crime or do drugs, it's not like buying a house, getting married, getting a job, all of those have factors you can't control that can directly impact those decisions. In 99% of the time, you can control not doing a crime or doing drugs.
1) drugs as a criminal offense is hands down the harshest treatment of a "victimless crime" especially in a society that touts itself as the land of the free. it's also the most heavily legislated, enforced, and pervasive criminal scheme. at its most fundamental level, it's the criminalization of a business transaction between fully informed, consenting adults. it's especially hypocritical when the criminalization of certain drugs runs parallel to the legal sale and consumption of other recreational drugs, notably alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, male enhancement, etc.
if you want to make the argument that "heavy" drugs are different than "casual" drugs, you can't turn a blind eye that (a) marijuana is as innocuous as alcohol, et al, and (b) there are other options such as regulating/licensing/otherwise restricting use of the heavier drugs without wholesale criminalization.
2) drug enforcement is inappropriately to skirt established constitutional safeguards for individual freedoms. police can't just "stop and frisk" anyone without probably cause. they can't illegally surveille people, can't pull cars over, and can't search apartments either. however, in choosing to vigorously enforce drug crimes, police are able to use the presence of a lighter, an ambiguous cigarette/joint, or even "suspicious packages" as pretextual legal footing for a jumping off point to target and arrest people they otherwise wouldn't have the power to target and arrest.
3) this leads to the well documented and proven practice of police targeting and arresting persons of color, and the poor in general. it might be chcken/egg but despite prevalent drug use across racial and socioeconomic boundaries, poor black and hispanic people feel a disproportionate impact of enforcing drug crimes. this leads to a destablization of poor minority family structures, perpetuating the cycle of keeping poor minorities poor. shout out to the single moms out there doing the best they can, but it's easier with two parents, any way you slice it.
like, i get that your view on criminal laws is very black/white in that there are laws, and if you don't want to do the time, don't do the crime, which is a defensible enough stance, especially for you as an individual. however, if you take a step back and consider what laws are, what their purpose is, and how we can advance ourselves as a society, there are so many other considerations that should influence your decision.
what laws are: laws represent the norms of the society in which we live; the expectations that we operate under, so that we are free to live the lives that we choose to live with minimal interference. we have property rights so that we can live in a house with the expectation that nobody can trespass and interfere with our use and enjoyment of our property. we drive on the right hand side of the road with the expectation that nobody will interfere with our driving. criminal laws are a step beyond those civil liberties where the consequences of violating those norms *seriously* interfere with our living of our lives. assault, robbery, and theft *seriously* interfere with the act of existing. drug use really doesn't interfere with people's lives other than the ones using those drugs. the fact that it's criminalized is a premise that deserves questioning.
what the purpose is: drug laws are to protect the people from using those drugs, as a deterrent. however, it's plain to see that it's not doing much of deterring people from using drugs, and what's worse, is that it's severely harming those who do use drugs. seeing as the purpose is being violated, criminalizing drugs is a premise that deserves questioning. doubly so when the opioid epidemic is being framed as a health crisis v. other drug use is being framed as a crime crisis. who are we trying to protect here, and how?
