4 ms·

It may need a good government, which is hard. E.g, I don't think SF can manage to handle so many homeless addictions. Yes, ideally it can be managed in this way

It may need a good government, which is hard. E.g, I don't think SF can manage to handle so many homeless addictions. Yes, ideally it can be managed in this way. In fact, it's hard to be carried out. And the result would be catastrophic.

arcticbull 10y ago
Maybe the $30-60,000 per year spent to incarcerate every low level drug offender could help. And it's not like they're avoiding managing it now between policing, encampments and incarceration. Not to mention health costs.
- rayiner 10y ago
  Very few non-violent drug offenders are incarcerated.
  - will_brown 10y ago
    Its sad your comment is downvoted simply because it runs counter to a favorite talking point. Certainly very few non-violent marijuana offenders are incarcerated for periods of a year or more where the tax payers would see savings to the tune of $30k-$60k/year. In fact in the 2.5 years I did criminal defense I didn't have a single client with a marijuana possession sentenced to serve any jail time, and most of my cases included additional charges such as DUI, Leaving the Scene of Accidents, etc... Just to further illustrate your point, I had a handful of more serious possession cases, including, cocaine, opiates, and crack pipe. Not a single one of them was sentenced to serve jail time either. I would actually like to see the statistics on first time misdemeanor marijuana offenders who receive 1 year jail sentences without any accompanying charges, my guess it might even be 0%.
  - mastax 10y ago
    http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/dofp12.pdf http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/dofp12.pdf - More than a third (35%) of drug offenders in federal prison at sentencing, had either no or minimal criminal history— lowest criminal history category. - Nearly a quarter (24%) of drug offenders in federal prison used a weapon in their most recent offense. Which is to say over 3/4 of them did not.
    - will_brown 10y ago
      There may be 2 seperate issues, so I think the question is: Do the inmates in federal prison qualify as low level drug offenders? Moreover, the term being discussed isn't a legal term with a definition, so as a result everyone kind of has their own opinion as to what qualifies. So for example, when I think of low level drug offenders forget people in federal prison and I would also think the vast majority of inmates in state prison fall outside my definition. Basically, when I think low level drug offender I am thinking about people who are in county jails. Edit: Your citation explains the vast majority of those first time offenders in federal prison are there for drug trafficking, that is why I discard federal prison as low level.
      - arcticbull 10y ago
        My perspective on smuggling is that it can be non-violent (concealing a substance to get it through the a port of entry) and is a natural response to criminalization of a substance that people want but is being artificially constrained. Further, this question maybe entirely immaterial as I'd imagine the bulk of this would go away completely with legalization and safe access. I think we'd be left with the same levels of smuggling as we see with cigarettes.
        rayiner 10y ago
        It might be a natural response, but that doesn't mean it should be legal. There is a big difference between making it illegal to consume a product that hurts you, and making it illegal to produce and sell a product that hurts the people who buy it.
        arcticbull 10y ago
        Agreed 100%, I'm saying that if we're deciding to treat this as a public health problem, provide safe/monitored/controlled access officially (like cigarettes) then the illegal network dries up as a side-effect. I'm not saying we should legalize to get rid of traffickers, I'm saying that legalizing for public health reasons will by consequence get rid of the traffickers.

arcticbull 10y ago

Maybe the $30-60,000 per year spent to incarcerate every low level drug offender could help. And it's not like they're avoiding managing it now between policing, encampments and incarceration. Not to mention health costs.

rayiner 10y ago
Very few non-violent drug offenders are incarcerated.
- will_brown 10y ago
  Its sad your comment is downvoted simply because it runs counter to a favorite talking point. Certainly very few non-violent marijuana offenders are incarcerated for periods of a year or more where the tax payers would see savings to the tune of $30k-$60k/year. In fact in the 2.5 years I did criminal defense I didn't have a single client with a marijuana possession sentenced to serve any jail time, and most of my cases included additional charges such as DUI, Leaving the Scene of Accidents, etc... Just to further illustrate your point, I had a handful of more serious possession cases, including, cocaine, opiates, and crack pipe. Not a single one of them was sentenced to serve jail time either. I would actually like to see the statistics on first time misdemeanor marijuana offenders who receive 1 year jail sentences without any accompanying charges, my guess it might even be 0%.
- mastax 10y ago
  http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/dofp12.pdf http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/dofp12.pdf - More than a third (35%) of drug offenders in federal prison at sentencing, had either no or minimal criminal history— lowest criminal history category. - Nearly a quarter (24%) of drug offenders in federal prison used a weapon in their most recent offense. Which is to say over 3/4 of them did not.
  - will_brown 10y ago
    There may be 2 seperate issues, so I think the question is: Do the inmates in federal prison qualify as low level drug offenders? Moreover, the term being discussed isn't a legal term with a definition, so as a result everyone kind of has their own opinion as to what qualifies. So for example, when I think of low level drug offenders forget people in federal prison and I would also think the vast majority of inmates in state prison fall outside my definition. Basically, when I think low level drug offender I am thinking about people who are in county jails. Edit: Your citation explains the vast majority of those first time offenders in federal prison are there for drug trafficking, that is why I discard federal prison as low level.
    - arcticbull 10y ago
      My perspective on smuggling is that it can be non-violent (concealing a substance to get it through the a port of entry) and is a natural response to criminalization of a substance that people want but is being artificially constrained. Further, this question maybe entirely immaterial as I'd imagine the bulk of this would go away completely with legalization and safe access. I think we'd be left with the same levels of smuggling as we see with cigarettes.
      - rayiner 10y ago
        It might be a natural response, but that doesn't mean it should be legal. There is a big difference between making it illegal to consume a product that hurts you, and making it illegal to produce and sell a product that hurts the people who buy it.
        arcticbull 10y ago
        Agreed 100%, I'm saying that if we're deciding to treat this as a public health problem, provide safe/monitored/controlled access officially (like cigarettes) then the illegal network dries up as a side-effect. I'm not saying we should legalize to get rid of traffickers, I'm saying that legalizing for public health reasons will by consequence get rid of the traffickers.