4 ms·

I would hope that these days no rational individual could support jail time for any non-violent drug crime, with the possible exception of cross-border smugglin

I would hope that these days no rational individual could support jail time for any non-violent drug crime, with the possible exception of cross-border smuggling, which treads on some different areas of the law.

eropple 9y ago
Crime of consumption or mere possession, I fully agree. Even distribution of something like pot, sure. But at the same time, I'm not sure that a rational individual has to agree with the proposition that somebody who's peddling fentanyl should not be put in jail. (I don't think, from what I know, that distribution of crack would be in that latter group.)
- eloff 9y ago
  Legalize heroin and then nobody will peddle fentanyl. Crises solved, see Portugal for an example in the real world. Making drugs illegal only really benefits drug dealers by putting the competition in jail and raising prices. Education and laws seem to fare so much better. See alcohol now and compare that to prohibition days rife with organized crime. It's political suicide to legalize street drugs in most countries - so it's a hard sell, but it's the option that makes the most sense.
  - greggman 9y ago
    In 2012, about 3.3 million net deaths, or 5.9% of all global deaths, were attributable to alcohol consumption. http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/facts/alcohol/en/ http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/facts/alcohol/en/ Legalizing drugs without more thought may actually make the problem worse. If drugs were 100% fully legal no restrictions why wouldn't corporations start advertising and pushing them as much as they do alcohol today? I'm actually for legalizing drugs but heard these arguments on an Intelligence Squared debate. BTW: Heroin isn't legal in Portugal, it's just decriminalized. You can still go to prison for selling heroin in Portugal and using, while not a criminal offense will still get you sent in to the authorities for "dissuasion"
    - eloff 9y ago
      I don't think anyone is arguing for no restrictions on schedule one drugs. Just clearly criminalizing possession/use is not working and it's time to try a new strategy. Distribution/selling should still be illegal and controlled by the government. I'd like to see a system where heroin addicts can get a prescription/license that allows them to purchase directly in a supervised injection center. I'd also like there to be plenty of resources and information available from the same place for those looking to leave that life behind. But I'm not an expert, and probably the people who are could come up with a better solution.
    - kwhitefoot 9y ago
      You can ban advertising of alcohol (since 1975) and tobacco (and tobacco replacements) as well as drugs. Where I live (Norway) you can't advertise any of those things and it seems that most people are quite happy with that.
jopsen 9y ago
Most violent criminals would do fine with an apartment, a job, an alarm clock and an location tracker. Even the most invasive surveillance system is more humane that the US prison system.
- mcny 9y ago
  > Even the most invasive surveillance system is more humane that the US prison system. They don't have the easy access to guns that we don't want to get rid of in the US. I've asked a few people this question: "If it could be so that you were allowed to kill anyone, anywhere. Nobody will stop you. You will face no legal consequences. You just have to produce a list of no fewer than five people you would definitely kill. Can you do that in the five minutes starting now?" You'd be amazed by how many answers I have gotten in the affirmative. I want to believe that most people don't commit violent crimes because doing so is against their moral fabric. That is not true in the world (or at least the country) we live in.
  - jopsen 9y ago
    There are a few criminals who are completely out of reach. Whether that's physiatric lock up or prison depends I guess. But most criminals, even most murders aren't out of reach. Note: I'm not proposing that there need not be control initially. Merely that we need to be better at giving up control over time. And yes, you'll find exceptions.
    - mcny 9y ago
      I mostly agree with you. However, there is no incentive for justice reform. No politician has won any accolades for making prisons safer much less for reintroducing ex-convicts back into the mainstream society. However, if someone ran on that and (inevitably) when someone from a program like that goes off the rails then the politician risks their career. I'm not saying that makes it OK. I am just trying to analyze what the problem is... I think the main problem is 1. most people just don't care about anything other than themselves and 2. they don't see of themselves in the same shoes as convicts
retailbuyout 9y ago
Hmm, I’m not so sure we should allow people to sell fentanyl pops or cocaine to kids without going to prison. Not arguing against your point broadly, but that’s exactly the type of response that would sink an effort to remove imprisonment for non violent drug crimes. As I see it, we need both a propaganda campaign pointing out how nuts the drug laws are in addition to some recognizable way of incrementally easing the laws and adjusting to it. That’s the rational thing an individual would do anyway; i am more aware than ever you need to parcel these things into 2 year steps for american power transfers between parties. To the person who downvoted me, this is distinctly less useful than contributing the conversation in a meaningul manner.
- lisper 9y ago
  > I’m not so sure we should allow people to sell fentanyl pops or cocaine to kids without going to prison. You don't need specific drug laws for that. Child endangerment laws are enough.
  - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
    > Child endangerment laws are enough. Are they, for small doses?
    - int_19h 9y ago
      Drugs are either harmful or they're not. If/when they demonstrably are, those laws should be enough.
      - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
        ....Dosing has everything to do with how harmful something is. Otherwise, the term overdosing wouldn't exist.
      - kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
        Aspirin is harmful. Water is harmful.
robotresearcher 9y ago
This guy was already on parole from being found guilty of another imprisonable offence. Hence no release on bail pending trial. That's no excuse for further delay, but explains why he was locked up in the first place.
kelnos 9y ago
> I would hope that these days no rational individual could support jail time for any non-violent drug crime Pretty sure branding half the US population as irrational isn't going to win you much consensus.
- smcl 9y ago
  Well acknowledging that half the US population are irrational is a pretty good first step. You probably wouldn't want to rub it in their faces if you were campaigning for reform like this, but why would you assume they would?
  - ebcode 9y ago
    I guess the second step is acknowledging that the other half are also irrational? And anyone campaigning for reform is also clearly irrational... It reminds me of the quote at the end of WarGames: "The only winning move is not to play."

eropple 9y ago

Crime of consumption or mere possession, I fully agree. Even distribution of something like pot, sure. But at the same time, I'm not sure that a rational individual has to agree with the proposition that somebody who's peddling fentanyl should not be put in jail. (I don't think, from what I know, that distribution of crack would be in that latter group.)

eloff 9y ago
Legalize heroin and then nobody will peddle fentanyl. Crises solved, see Portugal for an example in the real world. Making drugs illegal only really benefits drug dealers by putting the competition in jail and raising prices. Education and laws seem to fare so much better. See alcohol now and compare that to prohibition days rife with organized crime. It's political suicide to legalize street drugs in most countries - so it's a hard sell, but it's the option that makes the most sense.
- greggman 9y ago
  In 2012, about 3.3 million net deaths, or 5.9% of all global deaths, were attributable to alcohol consumption. http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/facts/alcohol/en/ http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/facts/alcohol/en/ Legalizing drugs without more thought may actually make the problem worse. If drugs were 100% fully legal no restrictions why wouldn't corporations start advertising and pushing them as much as they do alcohol today? I'm actually for legalizing drugs but heard these arguments on an Intelligence Squared debate. BTW: Heroin isn't legal in Portugal, it's just decriminalized. You can still go to prison for selling heroin in Portugal and using, while not a criminal offense will still get you sent in to the authorities for "dissuasion"
  - eloff 9y ago
    I don't think anyone is arguing for no restrictions on schedule one drugs. Just clearly criminalizing possession/use is not working and it's time to try a new strategy. Distribution/selling should still be illegal and controlled by the government. I'd like to see a system where heroin addicts can get a prescription/license that allows them to purchase directly in a supervised injection center. I'd also like there to be plenty of resources and information available from the same place for those looking to leave that life behind. But I'm not an expert, and probably the people who are could come up with a better solution.
  - kwhitefoot 9y ago
    You can ban advertising of alcohol (since 1975) and tobacco (and tobacco replacements) as well as drugs. Where I live (Norway) you can't advertise any of those things and it seems that most people are quite happy with that.

jopsen 9y ago

Most violent criminals would do fine with an apartment, a job, an alarm clock and an location tracker. Even the most invasive surveillance system is more humane that the US prison system.

mcny 9y ago
> Even the most invasive surveillance system is more humane that the US prison system. They don't have the easy access to guns that we don't want to get rid of in the US. I've asked a few people this question: "If it could be so that you were allowed to kill anyone, anywhere. Nobody will stop you. You will face no legal consequences. You just have to produce a list of no fewer than five people you would definitely kill. Can you do that in the five minutes starting now?" You'd be amazed by how many answers I have gotten in the affirmative. I want to believe that most people don't commit violent crimes because doing so is against their moral fabric. That is not true in the world (or at least the country) we live in.
- jopsen 9y ago
  There are a few criminals who are completely out of reach. Whether that's physiatric lock up or prison depends I guess. But most criminals, even most murders aren't out of reach. Note: I'm not proposing that there need not be control initially. Merely that we need to be better at giving up control over time. And yes, you'll find exceptions.
  - mcny 9y ago
    I mostly agree with you. However, there is no incentive for justice reform. No politician has won any accolades for making prisons safer much less for reintroducing ex-convicts back into the mainstream society. However, if someone ran on that and (inevitably) when someone from a program like that goes off the rails then the politician risks their career. I'm not saying that makes it OK. I am just trying to analyze what the problem is... I think the main problem is 1. most people just don't care about anything other than themselves and 2. they don't see of themselves in the same shoes as convicts

retailbuyout 9y ago

Hmm, I’m not so sure we should allow people to sell fentanyl pops or cocaine to kids without going to prison. Not arguing against your point broadly, but that’s exactly the type of response that would sink an effort to remove imprisonment for non violent drug crimes. As I see it, we need both a propaganda campaign pointing out how nuts the drug laws are in addition to some recognizable way of incrementally easing the laws and adjusting to it. That’s the rational thing an individual would do anyway; i am more aware than ever you need to parcel these things into 2 year steps for american power transfers between parties. To the person who downvoted me, this is distinctly less useful than contributing the conversation in a meaningul manner.

lisper 9y ago
> I’m not so sure we should allow people to sell fentanyl pops or cocaine to kids without going to prison. You don't need specific drug laws for that. Child endangerment laws are enough.
- SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
  > Child endangerment laws are enough. Are they, for small doses?
  - int_19h 9y ago
    Drugs are either harmful or they're not. If/when they demonstrably are, those laws should be enough.
    - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
      ....Dosing has everything to do with how harmful something is. Otherwise, the term overdosing wouldn't exist.
    - kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
      Aspirin is harmful. Water is harmful.

robotresearcher 9y ago

This guy was already on parole from being found guilty of another imprisonable offence. Hence no release on bail pending trial. That's no excuse for further delay, but explains why he was locked up in the first place.

kelnos 9y ago

> I would hope that these days no rational individual could support jail time for any non-violent drug crime Pretty sure branding half the US population as irrational isn't going to win you much consensus.

smcl 9y ago
Well acknowledging that half the US population are irrational is a pretty good first step. You probably wouldn't want to rub it in their faces if you were campaigning for reform like this, but why would you assume they would?
- ebcode 9y ago
  I guess the second step is acknowledging that the other half are also irrational? And anyone campaigning for reform is also clearly irrational... It reminds me of the quote at the end of WarGames: "The only winning move is not to play."