What's the point of jail? (Page 2)

Ok.  The "legalize drug" argument is one that drives me absolutely insane.  The notion that legalizing highly addictive drugs will somehow reduce crime rates is pure speculation.  Unless you are going to provide all requested "drugs" for free there will still be a need for addicts to have funds to buy their drug of choice.

So in this world of legalized drugs is the scenario to not simply legalize all drugs but to also give them away?  Additionally, in the "legalize all drugs" scenario does this mean you also do away with the requirement to have prescriptions for controlled substances?  Where I live the most abused narcotics are pills.  These pills aren't "illegal" in the sense that their mere existence is illegal, i.e.: cocaine or heroin.  But it becomes illegal to posses without a 'script.  So, in the "legalize all drugs world" do you do away with all prescriptions?

Also the notion that drug use is a victimless crime is pure poppycock.  For instance 80% of Department of Children and Family Services call outs for children in need of services were directly related to substance abuse.  This number includes both abuse and neglect cases.  Tell the kids that end up in foster care as a result of an addicted parent that can't take care of them that they aren't a victim.

Additionally, the argument that decriminalizing narcotics will lead to less addiction is also nothing more than pure speculation.

People argue that decriminalizing narcotics will lead to lower crime rates.  This statement is made with out much discussion of the "how."  Certainly, it will reduce incarcerative populations in both jails and prisons based purely on numbers, as those acts that were previously crimes will not exist.  In that sense it will "reduce" the crime rate and jail and prison populations, but that reduction isn't a real reduction in crime rates.  What has been proposed is that there would be a reduction in the drug related crimes, both property and violent crimes.  The theory or argument is that because drugs will be legal the addict will no longer need to steal, rob, burglarize homes to support his/her habit.  Why is this true?  Unless drugs become legal AND free there will be a need for the addict to have money to support their habit.

I believe I can argue with just as much authority that the legalization of narcotics will lead to more crime and higher addiction rates.  Without the stigma attached to illegal activity there are those that will use and then abuse drugs that may not have if the action was illegal.  Additionally, in areas of the world that have "legalized" drugs or at the least turned a blind eye to drug enforcement they have seen an increase in addiction rates, along with increases of illnesses associated with drug use, HIV and Hepatitis.  Interestingly there is also an increase in the child welfare system, as well as marked increases in prostitution.  With an increase in prostitution there also seems to be a correlation with an increase in human trafficking.

So the mantra of "legalize narcotics" isn't as simple as it seems.  Nor do the asserted cures necessarily flow from that policy.

"The war on drugs should be over", I'm often curious when people state or insinuate that the "war on drugs" is a failure and thus should be abandoned.  Why is it a failure?  Because people still use drugs?  Is that the extent of the argument?  I'm truly curious.

If the standard by which we judge the success of any criminal statute is whether people comply with it or not, then isn't it true that all "wars on crime" are a failure; regardless of the crime proscribed?

In Florida it's a felony to steel over 1000 pieces of citrus fruit.  The fact that people are prosecuted for such thefts means that the deterrent effect of that law hasn't be realized., i.e.: people are still stealing citrus fruit.  Does this mean that we should simply abandon the efforts to prevent large scale citrus thefts?

The idea that the "war on drugs" should be abandoned, unlike other criminal issues, seems to stem from an underlying premise that drug use is a victimless crime.  Drug use is no less a victimless crime than DUI.  I believe that the notion that narcotic use is victimless ignores the realities of the situation. 

I never said that all drug crimes were "victimless".....and in your example of child abuse those people would still go to priuson.  In keeping with that example, the fact that drugs are now illegal certainly doesn't help, or you wouldn't have an example to point to.

I can't speak at all about prescription drugs because it's been years since I was involved in any narcotic diversion investigations.  Yes, I realize that prescription drugs are probably a larger problem than illegal narcotics from an addiction perspective, but the fact is, there isn't near as much crime associated with those drugs as there is with illegal narcotics.

Prohibition is a good example of the crime that rose up while a drug was was illegal.....the sale of illegal booze funded crime enterprises very easily.  Yes, you can make the case that after alcohol was made legal again it came with societal problems.....but the crime surrounding the trade disappeared. 

Some of your points are valid, and worth looking at.....but the fact remains, we have hundreds of thousands of people incarcerated for drug crimes, and the majority of our property crime today is tied up in the illegal drug trade......the "war on drugs" is a failure, except for the money funneled to law enforcement agencies to continue the march toward militarization of our Police Departments.

Keeping drugs illegal and keeping drug offenders imprisoned while we let violent offenders return to the street is what drives me insane.

  You're factually wrong on certain issues.

1.  DCF involvement for either "abuse" or "neglect" does not mean someone is going to prison or even being arrested.  DCF has jurisdiction under their own statutory authority and the definitions of abuse and neglect for purposes of DCF involvement are not the same as the definitions that trigger criminal liability.   THus DCF can get involved in a case of "abuse" or "neglect" under their jursisdiction in cases that do not rise to the level of criminal conduct.  That's why in the vast majority of DCF or child protective services cases across the nation the department is involved and there are no criminal charges.  So, at least in Florida, you're simply factually wrong.

2.  I'm not sure where the assertion as fact that there simply isn't as much "crime associated" with those drugs comes from.  At least in the jurisdiction where I live and work you would be wrong.   The amount, and type of crime associated with "pill addiction" is actually at a higher rate than when I started in the 90's during the crack years.  In fact, in my jurisdiction, the amount of property crimes associated with the pill epidemic exceeds that of the crack years.   The major drug problem we have is pills.  (Although that is changing as the price per pill increases we are seeing a trending downward of pill use and a concurrent upward trending in meth and a return of crack) I believe, and it's only based upon my experience it has to do with the type of addiction involved.  The majority of pills that are being abused are opiates and thus have a much higher addiction rate and a much lower recovery success rate than say cocaine. 

3.  I'm not sure where you live, however the notion that drug criminals are serving more time in prison than violent criminals is again wrong, at least in the jurisdiction where I live.  As a result of sentencing guidelines, minimum mandatory sentencing for certain violent crimes, mandatory enhancements for violent felony offenders of special concern, habitual felony offenders, or prison releasee reoffenders  unless an individual was involved in trafficking monsterously huge amounts of narcotics they just aren't serving nearly the same amount of time as narcotics cases.  As a point of fact simple possession charges are excluded from these sentence enhancing schemes.  Thus drug charges cannot be used as enhancement for Three time loser, habitual felony offender,or prison releasee reoffender statutes.  

4.  The notion that incarceration and post adjudicatory treatment programs are mutually exclusive is also another misnomer.  There is a trend across the nation for diversionary treatment programs.  A large amount of Federal and State monies have been dedicated towards the development of State Drug Court Programs. These programs are diversionary in nature and are treatment based rather than court based.  In fact the number of drug courts and the number of participants have risen dramatically over the last decade.  As a point of fact one of the mitigating reasons for a court departing from a mandatory prison sentence under the Florida Sentencing guidelines is that a person is amenable to treatment in a post adjudicatory treatment program.

5.  How do you plan to deal with the associated drug tourism trade that will inevitably occur with the legalization of drugs.  Countries that have legalized drugs or turn a blind eye to enforcement have all incurred a growth in drug tourism.  This drug tourism has not been the boon that people believed it would be or hoped it would be, to the contrary it has been a bane.  (If legalization is so wonderful why has the Netherlands for years been attempting to halt their drug tourism trade.  Even proposing banning the sale of pot in the coffee houses to tourists?)

6.  I hear the prohibition argument all the time as it relates to crime and narcotics.   However I'm not so sure the analogy is appropriate.  The primary difference is that prohibition took something that was legal for the entire history of the country and made it illegal.  That is not the case with the drugs we are talking about.  With alcohol there was a societal history of not just acceptance, but use, PRIOR to its illegalization.   This is not the case with cocaine, heroin, opiates, or the drugs we are talking about.  There has not been a long history of their legality, use, and acceptance.

Brock....you're making claims that I didn't make or you haven't followed the entire discussion on both threads:

1.  I know that all people who commit child abuse crimes don't go to jail......but I have stated repeatedly that they should, as a violent offender.

2. In my jurisdiction it's heroin, meth, then crack......stealing to get prescription pills is very rare.

3. I never said drug criminals are sevring more time than violent offenders....what I said was that drug criminals need to be released to make room to keep violent offenders in prison longer....with many there for life terms.

4. I like drug courts, and DWI courts.

5.  I never said legalizing drugs would be a boon.....I said it owuld be better than what we have now with the ridiculous "war on drugs".

6.  That's not true.....there is absolutely a long history of acceptance among drug users......but the point is that the majority of us are not drug users, at least not hard drugs.  I'm never going to be convinced that people stay away from hard drugs because they are illegal....people stay away because they ruin lives...are you going to try heroin if it becomes legal?

LB:  I respect your opinion, and thanks for talking about it in a logical, friendly way.  I am afraid that like you I will simply never agree with the other position.  I personally cannot, nor probably never will, agree with the notion of legalizing narcotics.

But, thanks for the debate.  I feel we will have to agree to disagree.

Yeah, it's a tough one for sure.  I freely admit that after being a DARE instructor, working undercover for 5 years, working interdiction for 3 years, supervising a drug investigation unit, and unfortunately, living through a partner being shot to death over 30 grams of marijuana, I'm ready to try something different.....this has all just become a ridiculous fight to me.  It really has nothing to do with drugs anymore, it's just about money, and what I see pretty much disgusts me.

Nope, I get it totally.  Some days it seems like you're swimming up stream and the only thing paying attention to you is the bear on the shore waiting to scope you up for all your trouble.  That's why I did SVU stuff for 15 years.  Easier to be passionate about that then other things.

Solution:

Legalize drugs and allow them to be purchased with food stamps.

Problem solved. 

Why make people steal when the government already does it?