4 ms·

Well... I don't think the last Administration had any sort of reasonable direction. There is a reason that they lost not just the Majority of the houses... but

Well... I don't think the last Administration had any sort of reasonable direction. There is a reason that they lost not just the Majority of the houses... but both sides of Congress AND the White House. I hope DARE doesn't return - as you said, the War on Drugs is about as successful as Prohibition... aka: not remotely. There are many things I like and dislike about the current administration... I don't think I'd like a doubling down on a failed War on Drugs.

soundwave106 9y ago
I personally prefer "creeping towards the right direction" to Sessions style doubling down, but I agree that this isn't a black-and-white "one side bad other side good" situation. Definitely, neither party (at the national level in particular) has been doing what most policy wonks I've read would believe is the correct thing... and I've been reading for decades how America's criminal justice policies (from its high prison rate to horrible policies like civil asset forfeiture) are often ineffective, expensive, and prone to corruption. Unfortunately, Americans historically has rewarded "tough on crime" stances at the ballot box, definitely in the 1980s and 1990s from what I remember. That probably honestly is the root cause. Even today, a majority of Americans still generally want to be "tough" on violent criminals, even if "tough" might be ineffective. (https://www.vox.com/2016/9/7/12814504/mass-incarceration-poll https://www.vox.com/2016/9/7/12814504/mass-incarceration-pol...) The good news is that Americans are changing their views on non-violent drug offenders -- there's some agreement that locking them up may not be the best thing. For this particular issue, there pretty much is bipartisan agreement that civil asset forfeiture is horrible. (https://www.cato.org/blog/84-americans-oppose-civil-asset-forfeiture https://www.cato.org/blog/84-americans-oppose-civil-asset-fo...). I've heard of some states partially reforming civil asset forfeiture recently -- as it seems typical in politics these days, a hodgepodge of states, led by neither one party or the other (often the reform bills are with bipartisan support), lead the way.

soundwave106 9y ago

I personally prefer "creeping towards the right direction" to Sessions style doubling down, but I agree that this isn't a black-and-white "one side bad other side good" situation. Definitely, neither party (at the national level in particular) has been doing what most policy wonks I've read would believe is the correct thing... and I've been reading for decades how America's criminal justice policies (from its high prison rate to horrible policies like civil asset forfeiture) are often ineffective, expensive, and prone to corruption. Unfortunately, Americans historically has rewarded "tough on crime" stances at the ballot box, definitely in the 1980s and 1990s from what I remember. That probably honestly is the root cause. Even today, a majority of Americans still generally want to be "tough" on violent criminals, even if "tough" might be ineffective. (https://www.vox.com/2016/9/7/12814504/mass-incarceration-poll https://www.vox.com/2016/9/7/12814504/mass-incarceration-pol...) The good news is that Americans are changing their views on non-violent drug offenders -- there's some agreement that locking them up may not be the best thing. For this particular issue, there pretty much is bipartisan agreement that civil asset forfeiture is horrible. (https://www.cato.org/blog/84-americans-oppose-civil-asset-forfeiture https://www.cato.org/blog/84-americans-oppose-civil-asset-fo...). I've heard of some states partially reforming civil asset forfeiture recently -- as it seems typical in politics these days, a hodgepodge of states, led by neither one party or the other (often the reform bills are with bipartisan support), lead the way.