Interesting experiment in Portugal: http://peter-one-instant.blogspot.com/2009/10/drug-decriminalization-in-portugal.html

I'll tell you what happened when marijuana was decriminalized in San Francisco:

Absolutely nothing.

But puritanical Christians will be puritanical Christians. Drugs mean pleasure and we can't have that.

And what would all those newly unemployed cops, prison guards, judges, and prison contractors do? They'd have to get real jobs that actually help society. Maybe they'll move to Mendocino and grow pot.

Interesting experiment in Portugal: http://peter-one-instant.blogspot.com/2009/10/drug-decriminalization-in-portugal.html

That is pretty much what the Netherlands did earlier, and what Switzerland is experimenting with and even Germany is studying. If you make the use of drugs a crime you end up with a lot of people in jail and who have no realistic option but to enter some kind of shadow economy of crime and prostitution.

Far more sensible is to treat addicts as people who are in need of medical and psychological aid, and the people who produce and trade in dangerous or addictive drugs as criminals. That way people who slip up once do not end up in a criminal circuit because they lose their job and are unable to find a new one due to their criminal record. And you do not spend billions prosecuting people who need help instead of jail time.
Controlled distribution of heroin or heroin replacements has almost entirely eliminated that drug in the Netherlands, and the offer of free treatment has significantly reduced the number of drugs addicts well below international averages (contrary to the country's reputation).

But I guess drugs are a good target for moral outrage for politicians who seek to galvanise part of the population, and it makes it easier to sound tough (by locking up a lot of people in jail) without actually spending much effort. So we probably will continue to see politicians refusing to learn the lesson of the prohibition era (and alcohol is a drug that is far more dangerous than most of the modern day soft drugs that are prosecuted strenuously because nobody dares to admit the policy is a failure for fear of the opposition painting them as 'weak').


Eri

Half those imprisoned in the US are there for non violent drug related crimes. And 90% of drug offenses are marijuana crimes.

Forget Christian zealotry.

Half the judges.
Half the cops.
Half the lawyers.
None of the DEA.
Half of the FDA.
Half the Coast Guard.
Half the prison guards and wardens.

Would be needed. The prison system is a jobs program, and a huge one. All of those people would need to find new jobs if illegal drugs, especially marijuana, were made legal.

That is why everyone in the prison system opposes legalization, you are messing with their house and credit card payments.

The prison system is a jobs program, and a huge one. All of those people would need to find new jobs if illegal drugs, especially marijuana, were made legal.

That is why everyone in the prison system opposes legalization, you are messing with their house and credit card payments.
It costs us ~20k a year for each prisoner. If we could reduce the prison population by half, we could give half the guards early retirement and still come off ahead financially. Prisons as a jobs program isn't a compelling argument against legalization.

There is talk in CA about decriminalizing pot. I think it's actually kind of serious talk too. They're thinking of all the tax revenue they could make off it.

It costs us ~20k a year for each prisoner. If we could reduce the prison population by half, we could give half the guards early retirement and still come off ahead financially. Prisons as a jobs program isn't a compelling argument against legalization.
I don't think anyone argues that locking people up is a good way to create jobs.

What is true that people with an interest in the system will fight tooth and nail to get more people locked up.

any progressives say that the problem is too much privatization in the prison system, and that profits these companies make are funneled into lobbying to get even more prisoners, popularly known as the 'prison industrial complex.' But this argument falls apart when you realize that every single stakeholder lobbies the same stance, from local public sector police and prison guard unions to the FBI, DEA, and many other federal agencies. And prisoner rates in every state is up exponentially regardless of the level of privatization.

You also have to look at the political implications. If you're a politician who votes no on tougher laws, and than a high publicity crime occurs, your opponents will attack you for your 'soft on crime' stance letting it happen. Politicians will always support locking up 2-3x as many people as necessary to help save their career in the event that a crime could make them look bad.

There is talk in CA about decriminalizing pot. I think it's actually kind of serious talk too. They're thinking of all the tax revenue they could make off it.A $14 billion a year crop, which I think is our biggest. Add to that all the cost savings from not putting people from cages, and it's a no brainer.

Of course that $14 billion value is artificially inflated because of its quasi-illegality, so who knows how much it will really be worth once the tobacco companies swoop in and Wal-Martize the market.

It costs us ~20k a year for each prisoner. If we could reduce the prison population by half, we could give half the guards early retirement and still come off ahead financially. Prisons as a jobs program isn't a compelling argument against legalization.Good luck. There has been no real progress in prisoner reduction even though a federal judge has ruled that the state is violating prisoners' constitutional rights on account of overcrowding.

State officials would apparently rather be in contempt of court than release prisoners who shouldn't be there in the first place.

The End of Prohibition (http://www.slate.com/id/2234017/)
Republicans face a risk in resisting these new realities. Freedom is part of their brand; if the GOP remains the party of prohibition, it will increasingly alienate libertarian-leaners and the young. But the party as presently constituted has very little capacity to accept social change. Democrats face a danger in embracing cultural transformations too eagerly. Nearly four decades after George McGovern became known as the candidate of amnesty, abortion, and acid, cultural issues are still treacherous territory for them. Why get in front of change when you can follow from a safe distance and end up with the same result?

You also have to look at the political implications. If you're a politician who votes no on tougher laws, and than a high publicity crime occurs, your opponents will attack you for your 'soft on crime' stance letting it happen. Politicians will always support locking up 2-3x as many people as necessary to help save their career in the event that a crime could make them look bad.

I guess the founding principle of justice should be changed from:
Innocent until proven guilty
into
Innocent unless can be locked up without public outcry


Eri

Innocent unless can be locked up without public outcryIt's not even public outcry. It's the ability of opposing politicians to manipulate and distort your record.

Supported of course by Christian puritanism.

Of course that $14 billion value is artificially inflated because of its quasi-illegality, so who knows how much it will really be worth once the tobacco companies swoop in and Wal-Martize the market.

Why would that ever happen, if you could go to Home Depot and buy them as house plants?

Tobacco is a fragile plant to grow by comparison. Cannabis is a friggen weed.

I'm sure there would be people who would buy premade pot cigarettes convenience, but they would never be as expensive as tobacco smokes.

Why would that ever happen, if you could go to Home Depot and buy them as house plants?It would happen because you'd be able to do that.

The current market value is artificially inflated by the extra cost of having to hide the growing, transportation, and distribution of it, and the cost of hiring people willing to take the extra risks involved on account of the illegality.

If it were legal, and everyone could grow it in plain sight, the supply would increase massively and the cost would decrease massively, lowering the value of the entire crop and decrease the potential for tax revenue.

I imagine it'd go a long way toward reducing the violence in Mexico too.

I imagine it'd go a long way toward reducing the violence in Mexico too.That's more speculative, whether legalizing drugs will reduce crime by breaking up the gangs that commit crimes solely on account of them.

It's also possible they will just deal in something else; there's always going to be something for the black market to trade.

I guess the founding principle of justice should be changed from:
Innocent until proven guilty
into
Innocent unless can be locked up without public outcry
Eri

The public outcry is because people are "waking up" so to speak. The government and politicians have had a monopoly on the talk about drugs sense the invention of the radio and sound on T.V.

With the Internet the government was a step to slow and people were finally able to challenge all the "research" the government did on drugs back in the 30's - 70's and disprove munch of it. Politicians made drugs out to be worse than they were. That created the social problems today with an over worked legal system, broken families, and a "war on drugs" that has no chance of succeeding.


It's not even public outcry. It's the ability of opposing politicians to manipulate and distort your record.

Supported of course by Christian puritanism.

...Yeah, anything you read with statistics should usually be thrown out unless you read everything that goes with the statistics.

I know you like "Christian bashing" but stick on point, your argument would hold up better. Many Muslim countries have far stricter laws against drugs yet they are not Christians and deal with the exact same mess with having to deal with these laws.

That's more speculative, whether legalizing drugs will reduce crime by breaking up the gangs that commit crimes solely on account of them.


It's not speculative. If you legalize drugs (assuming you don't tax it too high) it will cripple a major source of gang income causing reduced crime as they choose another buisness model. Now if you tax it too high, you just created another market. Look at all the US states that have raised Cigerette Taxes and now they have to create a new drug/gang unit to stop the distribution of Tobacco into their state. Not to mention the surrounding states who also must create these units to prevent the Tobacco crossing their state lines to get to the these states.

It's also possible they will just deal in something else; there's always going to be something for the black market to trade.

You can look at the end of prohibition to prove this one correct. Mom and Pop shops may close but any semi-organized gang or drug cartell will find a different way to make money.

To tie both quotes together...
You will see drug related crime drop...But you will see another form of crime rise.
Example from American History...
Prohibition caused organized crime to get rich very fast selling boot-legged liquor. Many mom and pop shops where created to support America's alcohol habbit. Crime and Violance rose because of the underground activities that these buisnesses created.
When prohibition ended, organized crime's lucrative money dried up with it. They still made a profit, but no where close to prhibition times. Many mom and pop buisnesses collapsed while some, now able to sell alcohol legally did just fine. But the overall crime rate went down. People didn't get arrested for buying liquor(lower prisoner count), people manufacturing liquor didn't get arrested as long as they paid their taxes(lower prisoner count), and murder's virtually stopped cause the selling and purchasing of alcohol was legal and so many of the turf wars ended.
But organized crime didn't stop, they just found a different way to make money, usually in the form of laundering money from drugs that are still illigal today.

(ignore my spelling)

I know you like "Christian bashing" but stick on point, your argument would hold up better. Many Muslim countries have far stricter laws against drugs yet they are not Christians and deal with the exact same mess with having to deal with these laws.Just because Muslims are also zealous nutjobs doesn't mean Christians aren't.

And since this is a Christian nation, not a Muslim one, Muslim laws don't concern me.