11 ms·

What's the total cost though? I read somewhere that the cost to keep an inmate in prison is like $40k a year and a good majority of the inmate population is in

by deelowe 13y ago

What's the total cost though? I read somewhere that the cost to keep an inmate in prison is like $40k a year and a good majority of the inmate population is in there due to drug related offenses. And what about the intangibles like the impact the drug war has had on minority and low income populations? I'm with everyone else here. This really is a lesser of two evils situation and letting a few people get high and possibly ruin their lives is much better than the situation we have today with the US having the highest incarceration rate in the world.

mseebach 13y ago
> I'm with everyone else here. Because I'm not? Or are you just knee-jerk assuming that because I dare to raise any comment at all, I'm opposed to the general idea? Don't assume that ending the war on drugs will free up some large, discrete sum of money that you can go and promise away on "sweet social programs". The money saved (of which there will be plenty) is in hundreds, even thousands, of small pools across all levels of government, all of which are perpetually money-starved, and it will be gone like dew on a summer morning before you'll get anywhere near it.
- Nursie 13y ago
  >> The money saved (of which there will be plenty) is in hundreds, even thousands, of small pools across all levels of government, all of which are perpetually money-starved, and it will be gone like dew on a summer morning before you'll get anywhere near it. Naive response - well excellent, by the sounds of it we've just freed up a whole bunch of funds in all sorts of areas for all sorts of other important stuff. More cynical response - government waste and perpetual hunger for more cash is a constant and something else we should be fighting anyway. Either way, I'm of the opinion that even if all the money disappeared off into a vacuum, the WoD is counterproductive. Even if we kept paying the DEA to just hang around and scratch its collective butt all day, we'd be making a positive change to society by stopping all action in the pointless 'war'.
- deelowe 13y ago
  > Because I'm not? Or are you just knee-jerk assuming that because I dare to raise any comment at all, I'm opposed to the general idea? No where in my comment did I offer any judgement against you or your character. You're the one making assumptions. > Don't assume that ending the war on drugs will free up some large, discrete sum of money that you can go and promise away on "sweet social programs". The money saved (of which there will be plenty) is in hundreds, even thousands, of small pools across all levels of government, all of which are perpetually money-starved, and it will be gone like dew on a summer morning before you'll get anywhere near it. I assume nothing beyond the fact that the current system is massively expensive and demonstrably a net negative on society. My opinion is simply that the current system is worse than doing nothing at all and my philosophy is always for there to be less government intervention in people's lives than more. Therefore, my preference is that we end the war on drugs as I believe this is a better situation than we are in today.

by deelowe 13y ago

mseebach 13y ago

> I'm with everyone else here. Because I'm not? Or are you just knee-jerk assuming that because I dare to raise any comment at all, I'm opposed to the general idea? Don't assume that ending the war on drugs will free up some large, discrete sum of money that you can go and promise away on "sweet social programs". The money saved (of which there will be plenty) is in hundreds, even thousands, of small pools across all levels of government, all of which are perpetually money-starved, and it will be gone like dew on a summer morning before you'll get anywhere near it.

Nursie 13y ago
>> The money saved (of which there will be plenty) is in hundreds, even thousands, of small pools across all levels of government, all of which are perpetually money-starved, and it will be gone like dew on a summer morning before you'll get anywhere near it. Naive response - well excellent, by the sounds of it we've just freed up a whole bunch of funds in all sorts of areas for all sorts of other important stuff. More cynical response - government waste and perpetual hunger for more cash is a constant and something else we should be fighting anyway. Either way, I'm of the opinion that even if all the money disappeared off into a vacuum, the WoD is counterproductive. Even if we kept paying the DEA to just hang around and scratch its collective butt all day, we'd be making a positive change to society by stopping all action in the pointless 'war'.
deelowe 13y ago
> Because I'm not? Or are you just knee-jerk assuming that because I dare to raise any comment at all, I'm opposed to the general idea? No where in my comment did I offer any judgement against you or your character. You're the one making assumptions. > Don't assume that ending the war on drugs will free up some large, discrete sum of money that you can go and promise away on "sweet social programs". The money saved (of which there will be plenty) is in hundreds, even thousands, of small pools across all levels of government, all of which are perpetually money-starved, and it will be gone like dew on a summer morning before you'll get anywhere near it. I assume nothing beyond the fact that the current system is massively expensive and demonstrably a net negative on society. My opinion is simply that the current system is worse than doing nothing at all and my philosophy is always for there to be less government intervention in people's lives than more. Therefore, my preference is that we end the war on drugs as I believe this is a better situation than we are in today.