3 ms·

In total, about a half million people are in jail or prison for having, using, or selling drugs. Drug crimes account for about half of Federal prisoners. But p

In total, about a half million people are in jail or prison for having, using, or selling drugs. Drug crimes account for about half of Federal prisoners. But percentage-wise, when you add up federal, state, and local prisons and jails, drugs are not as large a percentage as you'd think. Another half million people in prisons or jails haven't been convicted of any crime at all, either because they can't afford bail or because they're just being processed today. If you had to guess what someone went to jail for, and you only knew they were in a State penitentiary, violent crime would be your best guess. Here's a bit pie chart: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html

staticassertion 6y ago
This is people in prison, not people sent to prison. Given that violent crimes have longer sentences, wouldn't that skew the existing count in prison considerably towards violent offenders, even if many more people are sent to prison for other offenses? Further, because there would be shorter sentences, you're far more likely to encounter a candidate with a lesser sentence.
joncrane 6y ago
What's not captured here is that drugs are a contributing factor to many of the crimes committed. An old and rather tired example is the junky stealing to get his next fix. The crime is robbery, but the cause is drugs. I would argue (having been in jail myself multiple times, and, by the way, thanks to a lot of factors, now very happily and gainfully employed) that drugs are at the very least a co-factor on the vast majority of crimes in the USA.
- vkou 6y ago
  I think most people understand this. What I'd like to see is the junkie to just get drugs from the government. It's cheaper for society to pay for a $20 fix (That costs $2 to produce), then for $500 dollars in property damage, a stolen $200 item that gets fenced for $20, a cop to show up to do a police report, and then, months down the road, an arrest, prison time, etc, etc.
  - CobrastanJorji 6y ago
    Same thing with prisoners and rehabilitation. Letting prisoners attend colleges for free is a remarkably good government investment. The same thing is true about the homeless. Homeless services are expensive. It's cheaper to get them apartments, even if you still offer them all of the support services you were offering before. But whenever you propose these things, social conservatives seem to come out of the woodwork and argue that it's not fair for prisoners or homeless people to get expensive stuff for free. Why should you get something good for doing a bad thing? Why should the homeless guy get an apartment that you'd paying $1000 a month for? Why should your taxes be buying drugs for that junkie? Even if you have to spend more taxes by not giving them these things, your sense of justice demands it be so.
    - vkou 6y ago
      > The same thing is true about the homeless. Homeless services are expensive. It's cheaper to get them apartments, even if you still offer them all of the support services you were offering before. We already do that, though, through things like food stamps and section 8 housing. It's expensive, but it works, because it keeps a lot of poor people fed and sheltered. The visible homeless that you see are people who tend to have additional problems, on top of being poor (Untreated addiction and mental health problems are two big causes of this.)
- iguy 6y ago
  When you say a co-factor, can you say more about what you have in mind? For instance it could be a junky who needs to feed his own habit. It could be that the profits available from dealing in some area motivate gangs to take control of it. And it could also be just that people taking drugs have impaired judgement, and do things they would avoid while sober. Would you care to guess how much of each goes on? For alcohol, I guess it's mainly the 3rd (DUI, and manslaughter, etc.) and a tiny bit of the 1st (shoplifting to buy a drink).
  - joncrane 6y ago
    Let me put it this way: if you were to create a Venn diagram of habitual drug and alcohol users and people who get incarcerated, 90+% of the incarcerated people would also be in the habitual users circle. I know correlation doesn't imply causation, but that's not the argument I'm making here.
- ticviking 6y ago
  There's also a lot of people pleading to the drug offence to get off of the property crime.

staticassertion 6y ago

This is people in prison, not people sent to prison. Given that violent crimes have longer sentences, wouldn't that skew the existing count in prison considerably towards violent offenders, even if many more people are sent to prison for other offenses? Further, because there would be shorter sentences, you're far more likely to encounter a candidate with a lesser sentence.

joncrane 6y ago

What's not captured here is that drugs are a contributing factor to many of the crimes committed. An old and rather tired example is the junky stealing to get his next fix. The crime is robbery, but the cause is drugs. I would argue (having been in jail myself multiple times, and, by the way, thanks to a lot of factors, now very happily and gainfully employed) that drugs are at the very least a co-factor on the vast majority of crimes in the USA.

vkou 6y ago
I think most people understand this. What I'd like to see is the junkie to just get drugs from the government. It's cheaper for society to pay for a $20 fix (That costs $2 to produce), then for $500 dollars in property damage, a stolen $200 item that gets fenced for $20, a cop to show up to do a police report, and then, months down the road, an arrest, prison time, etc, etc.
- CobrastanJorji 6y ago
  Same thing with prisoners and rehabilitation. Letting prisoners attend colleges for free is a remarkably good government investment. The same thing is true about the homeless. Homeless services are expensive. It's cheaper to get them apartments, even if you still offer them all of the support services you were offering before. But whenever you propose these things, social conservatives seem to come out of the woodwork and argue that it's not fair for prisoners or homeless people to get expensive stuff for free. Why should you get something good for doing a bad thing? Why should the homeless guy get an apartment that you'd paying $1000 a month for? Why should your taxes be buying drugs for that junkie? Even if you have to spend more taxes by not giving them these things, your sense of justice demands it be so.
  - vkou 6y ago
    > The same thing is true about the homeless. Homeless services are expensive. It's cheaper to get them apartments, even if you still offer them all of the support services you were offering before. We already do that, though, through things like food stamps and section 8 housing. It's expensive, but it works, because it keeps a lot of poor people fed and sheltered. The visible homeless that you see are people who tend to have additional problems, on top of being poor (Untreated addiction and mental health problems are two big causes of this.)
iguy 6y ago
When you say a co-factor, can you say more about what you have in mind? For instance it could be a junky who needs to feed his own habit. It could be that the profits available from dealing in some area motivate gangs to take control of it. And it could also be just that people taking drugs have impaired judgement, and do things they would avoid while sober. Would you care to guess how much of each goes on? For alcohol, I guess it's mainly the 3rd (DUI, and manslaughter, etc.) and a tiny bit of the 1st (shoplifting to buy a drink).
- joncrane 6y ago
  Let me put it this way: if you were to create a Venn diagram of habitual drug and alcohol users and people who get incarcerated, 90+% of the incarcerated people would also be in the habitual users circle. I know correlation doesn't imply causation, but that's not the argument I'm making here.
ticviking 6y ago
There's also a lot of people pleading to the drug offence to get off of the property crime.