You seem to have fallen down a rather slippery slope, lemme see if I can help you out. Legalizing isn't the same as putting it in a convenience store, as we have found in America with such concepts at medicinal marijuana, which can be tightly controlled in both sales locations and acceptable form. The Netherlands has legalized heroin, but you have to go to a special place to do it, and you get it straight from the government. There are areas between illegal and CVS auto-injecting you when you walk in the door.
I still have issues with that (I'm not big on the government handing out free illegal drugs*), but that's a lot more palatable than it being in convenience stores (which is what he said).
*if they're going to do it it should be coupled with a treatment program (including institutionalization if necessary) plus with financial support and counseling after the addicts get clean.
No one said to put it in a convenience store. One person did say store but that doesn't automatically mean the local gas station. Lots of places of government controlled stores for drugs.
You seem to have fallen down a rather slippery slope, lemme see if I can help you out. Legalizing isn't the same as putting it in a convenience store, as we have found in America with such concepts at medicinal marijuana, which can be tightly controlled in both sales locations and acceptable form. The Netherlands has legalized heroin, but you have to go to a special place to do it, and you get it straight from the government. There are areas between illegal and CVS auto-injecting you when you walk in the door.
I still have issues with that (I'm not big on the government handing out free illegal drugs*), but that's a lot more palatable than it being in convenience stores (which is what he said).
*if they're going to do it it should be coupled with a treatment program (including institutionalization if necessary) plus with financial support and counseling after the addicts get clean.
Lots of places of government controlled stores for drugs.
So you guys are telling me that in foreign parts the government sells hard drugs? Or is this another reference to programs like the Netherlands' where junkies can shoot up in a safe environment using clean needles and government-provided drugs? edit- because the latter is definitely not a store
Lots of places of government controlled stores for drugs.
So you guys are telling me that in foreign parts the government sells hard drugs? Or is this another reference to programs like the Netherlands' where junkies can shoot up in a safe environment using clean needles and government-provided drugs? edit- because the latter is definitely not a store
Have you never seen a pharmacy? Its a a) store with b) counters and c) sells lots of heavily controlled drugs in strictly government regulated fashion with requiring varying levels of authorization to purchase drugs based on potency and effects. Hell in some areas people commonly refer to them as drug stores
Is it a cultural thing? Like, do Pharmacies not exist?
It could be partially on my end too, because I had to remember, you can buy alcohol in the states from convenience stores, whereas in Canada, even alcohol is regulated to specific buildings, can't even enter them without ID.
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
I'm confused. WiseManTobes, by your comment on legalization "once it's in stores/behind counters" did you mean selling hard drugs (meth, cocaine, heroin) in pharmacies? They already have prescriptions for meth, and cocaine and heroin are used only in hospitals and only as a last resort.
Oh! Did you mean for addicts in treatment programs or something, right? Instead of going to the injection site they can just pick up their prescription at the drug store?
I'm confused. WiseManTobes, by your comment on legalization "once it's in stores/behind counters" did you mean selling hard drugs (meth, cocaine, heroin) in pharmacies? They already have prescriptions for meth, and cocaine and heroin are used only in hospitals and only as a last resort.
Oh! Did you mean for addicts in treatment programs or something, right? Instead of going to the injection site they can just pick up their prescription at the drug store?
Ya something akin to the injection sites they have in Vancouver, soemwhat broadened, and even with some regulation to allow those who want it to get it, because like other s have said, if people want drugs them will get drugs, them being illegal and the war on drugs, has made them easier to obtain for all ages and personalities. Prison is one of the biggest drug markets there is, obviously it would take some work, and probably some trial and error.
But what we have is CLEARLY not working, at all, whatsoever. And while not ideal, Legalization/regulation does work towards undoing a lot of the major problems, which is basically the underground profit market for them, and their complete willingness to sell to anyone of any age.
The policy of locking up addicts, while dealers pay fines and get right back out, is also pretty broken.
Is that really happening though? I'm not saying that there isn't disproportionate sentencing for possession, but looking at this chart for cocaine penalties for selling is a lot steeper than possession.
The policy of locking up addicts, while dealers pay fines and get right back out, is also pretty broken.
Is that really happening though? I'm not saying that there isn't disproportionate sentencing for possession, but looking at this chart for cocaine penalties for selling is a lot steeper than possession.
In my experience even living in the small town I do, you're more likely to see addicts and small time dealers spend time in jail than you will the people that are bringing the drugs into a community. And if I can figure out who they are, I'm sure the police can too. It's just easier to catch someone on the lower end doing something clearly illegal, and addicts will sometimes try to sell some of their own supply at a higher price than they bought it to feed their addiction.
Sending an addict to jail is about as effective at stopping the drug trade as wagging our fingers at drug lords and moralizing to them about the dangers of hard drugs in society.
User name Alazull on Steam, PSN, Nintenders, Epic, etc.
+2
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
Facts and empirical evidence are highly valued here.
... which is why Trace's account was dismissed, yes?
Well I don't see anyone using my personal experience to back up their arguments. I simply spoke about it because hey I'm empirical evidence that you don't need prison to kick a serious addiction.
The policy of locking up addicts, while dealers pay fines and get right back out, is also pretty broken.
Is that really happening though? I'm not saying that there isn't disproportionate sentencing for possession, but looking at this chart for cocaine penalties for selling is a lot steeper than possession.
In my experience even living in the small town I do, you're more likely to see addicts and small time dealers spend time in jail than you will the people that are bringing the drugs into a community. And if I can figure out who they are, I'm sure the police can too. It's just easier to catch someone on the lower end doing something clearly illegal, and addicts will sometimes try to sell some of their own supply at a higher price than they bought it to feed their addiction.
Sending an addict to jail is about as effective at stopping the drug trade as wagging our fingers at drug lords and moralizing to them about the dangers of hard drugs in society.
I'm not arguing that addicts are more prone to be put in jail. I'm questioning wether users are giving higher sentences than dealers, which from a both a legal and objective standpoint makes no sense. The current method of seeing small time offenders as a "low hanging fruit" for an arrest absolutely have to be changed. I however don't think that associated crimes to drug addiction (burglary, robbery etc.) should go unpunished. Drug addiction shouldn't be a disculpa for crimes with victims. There absolutely should be rehab options in prison however.
PS4 - Mrfuzzyhat
0
Options
AlazullYour body is not a temple, it's an amusement park.Enjoy the ride.Registered Userregular
The policy of locking up addicts, while dealers pay fines and get right back out, is also pretty broken.
Is that really happening though? I'm not saying that there isn't disproportionate sentencing for possession, but looking at this chart for cocaine penalties for selling is a lot steeper than possession.
In my experience even living in the small town I do, you're more likely to see addicts and small time dealers spend time in jail than you will the people that are bringing the drugs into a community. And if I can figure out who they are, I'm sure the police can too. It's just easier to catch someone on the lower end doing something clearly illegal, and addicts will sometimes try to sell some of their own supply at a higher price than they bought it to feed their addiction.
Sending an addict to jail is about as effective at stopping the drug trade as wagging our fingers at drug lords and moralizing to them about the dangers of hard drugs in society.
I'm not arguing that addicts are more prone to be put in jail. I'm questioning wether users are giving higher sentences than dealers, which from a both a legal and objective standpoint makes no sense. The current method of seeing small time offenders as a "low hanging fruit" for an arrest absolutely have to be changed. I however don't think that associated crimes to drug addiction (burglary, robbery etc.) should go unpunished. Drug addiction shouldn't be a disculpa for crimes with victims. There absolutely should be rehab options in prison however.
What I'm getting at is that while yes the sentence for dealing is higher, addicts tend to try to sell to make money for their habit. So they end up getting charged with the higher offense, which I want to say is a forced decision on the courts part due to the nature of anti-drug laws, and going to federal pound-you-in-the-ass prison instead of getting the help they need.
User name Alazull on Steam, PSN, Nintenders, Epic, etc.
The policy of locking up addicts, while dealers pay fines and get right back out, is also pretty broken.
Is that really happening though? I'm not saying that there isn't disproportionate sentencing for possession, but looking at this chart for cocaine penalties for selling is a lot steeper than possession.
In my experience even living in the small town I do, you're more likely to see addicts and small time dealers spend time in jail than you will the people that are bringing the drugs into a community. And if I can figure out who they are, I'm sure the police can too. It's just easier to catch someone on the lower end doing something clearly illegal, and addicts will sometimes try to sell some of their own supply at a higher price than they bought it to feed their addiction.
Sending an addict to jail is about as effective at stopping the drug trade as wagging our fingers at drug lords and moralizing to them about the dangers of hard drugs in society.
I'm not arguing that addicts are more prone to be put in jail. I'm questioning wether users are giving higher sentences than dealers, which from a both a legal and objective standpoint makes no sense. The current method of seeing small time offenders as a "low hanging fruit" for an arrest absolutely have to be changed. I however don't think that associated crimes to drug addiction (burglary, robbery etc.) should go unpunished. Drug addiction shouldn't be a disculpa for crimes with victims. There absolutely should be rehab options in prison however.
What I'm getting at is that while yes the sentence for dealing is higher, addicts tend to try to sell to make money for their habit. So they end up getting charged with the higher offense, which I want to say is a forced decision on the courts part due to the nature of anti-drug laws, and going to federal pound-you-in-the-ass prison instead of getting the help they need.
Should there be differing sentence structures wether or not you happen to be an addict when you're dealing? It would be more apt to look at how severe the punishment is for small quantities of drugs which lies in the realm between possession and possession with the intent to distribute (where any prosecutor would push for the highest sentence)
What @WiseManTobes was arguing is that addicts are getting higher sentences than dealers, which I would argue doesn't make sense and without statistical evidence it's kinda a moot point.
The policy of locking up addicts, while dealers pay fines and get right back out, is also pretty broken.
Is that really happening though? I'm not saying that there isn't disproportionate sentencing for possession, but looking at this chart for cocaine penalties for selling is a lot steeper than possession.
In my experience even living in the small town I do, you're more likely to see addicts and small time dealers spend time in jail than you will the people that are bringing the drugs into a community. And if I can figure out who they are, I'm sure the police can too. It's just easier to catch someone on the lower end doing something clearly illegal, and addicts will sometimes try to sell some of their own supply at a higher price than they bought it to feed their addiction.
Sending an addict to jail is about as effective at stopping the drug trade as wagging our fingers at drug lords and moralizing to them about the dangers of hard drugs in society.
I'm not arguing that addicts are more prone to be put in jail. I'm questioning wether users are giving higher sentences than dealers, which from a both a legal and objective standpoint makes no sense. The current method of seeing small time offenders as a "low hanging fruit" for an arrest absolutely have to be changed. I however don't think that associated crimes to drug addiction (burglary, robbery etc.) should go unpunished. Drug addiction shouldn't be a disculpa for crimes with victims. There absolutely should be rehab options in prison however.
What I'm getting at is that while yes the sentence for dealing is higher, addicts tend to try to sell to make money for their habit. So they end up getting charged with the higher offense, which I want to say is a forced decision on the courts part due to the nature of anti-drug laws, and going to federal pound-you-in-the-ass prison instead of getting the help they need.
Also addicts usually don't have a dime to even pay bail, while most high end dealers have multiple lawyers on retainer that argue their stuff down to fines and a finger wagging
The policy of locking up addicts, while dealers pay fines and get right back out, is also pretty broken.
Is that really happening though? I'm not saying that there isn't disproportionate sentencing for possession, but looking at this chart for cocaine penalties for selling is a lot steeper than possession.
In my experience even living in the small town I do, you're more likely to see addicts and small time dealers spend time in jail than you will the people that are bringing the drugs into a community. And if I can figure out who they are, I'm sure the police can too. It's just easier to catch someone on the lower end doing something clearly illegal, and addicts will sometimes try to sell some of their own supply at a higher price than they bought it to feed their addiction.
Sending an addict to jail is about as effective at stopping the drug trade as wagging our fingers at drug lords and moralizing to them about the dangers of hard drugs in society.
I'm not arguing that addicts are more prone to be put in jail. I'm questioning wether users are giving higher sentences than dealers, which from a both a legal and objective standpoint makes no sense. The current method of seeing small time offenders as a "low hanging fruit" for an arrest absolutely have to be changed. I however don't think that associated crimes to drug addiction (burglary, robbery etc.) should go unpunished. Drug addiction shouldn't be a disculpa for crimes with victims. There absolutely should be rehab options in prison however.
On paper, no. In reality it is much harder to convict a smart dealer than it is a junkie. Mostly because even the smartest junkie is dumb about his habit. See at least the one judge I personally know was paid off in cocaine for a favorable deal. He had to be smart to be a judge, but I have to imagine the cocaine deals eventually bit him in the ass. Dealers, so long as they stay off their supply, have a number of nifty tricks to put the illusion of distance between them and the junky getting his drugs. That illusion becomes enough to create a valid legal argument for low sentencing.
So what happens is now we have police who can get a lot of arrests that lead to convictions by going after the customer rather than the supplier. This in turn leads to pressure to go after those arrests in order to bolster the tough on drugs and tough on crime appearance DAs with greater political aspirations love. And thus the system once again fails us because the police and DA work so hard to help each other out.
Okay, I promised I was gonna go through this and I am now making good on that. Ninjeff, I've snipped the stuff about tone because it isn't related to an argument about drug policing, so don't think that I ignored it or am dismissing you personally, I would just rather address your personal beliefs about policing than get into a discussion about how we are personally finding one another's tone.
More over, it was to illustrate that the idea of rehab being a fix is preferable in drug abuse situations. Notice i never said it wouldnt be a favorable outcome, but simply that some people have to go to jail to hit bottom and realize "shit....i really messed up, and i better get straight". Instead of just saying "some people need to go to jail to hit rock bottom" i decided to give my anecdote about the real world experience I've had with the subject. I felt it relevant also because it was a real world example of what Romero Zombies was talking about.
OK. I'm glad we agree that rehab is preferable to prison.
Now, let's talk about the bolded claim. This is where we are butting heads and talking past each other, I think. You are saying that you are using your anecdote about your friend hitting rock bottom in prison as proof that some people need to go to jail in order to hit that bottom and get straight. I think this is incorrect and/or not ideal on multiple levels.
1) You are assuming that since your friend's bottom happened to be jail that jail was his only possible bottom. It's entirely plausible that had he not been arrested, he would've found himself in some other awful situation which made him rethink his addiction.
2) The idea that someone must hit rock bottom in order to overcome their addiction is a myth.
MYTH #8: Nobody will voluntarily seek treatment until they hit ‘rock bottom.’
FACT: There are many things that can motivate a person to enter and complete substance abuse treatment before they hit "rock bottom." Pressure from family members and employers, as well as personal recognition that they have a problem, can be powerful motivating factors for individuals to seek treatment. For teens, parents and school administrators are often driving forces in getting them into treatment once problems at home or in school develop but before situations become dire. Seventeen percent of adolescents entering treatment in 1999 were self- or individual referrals, while 11 percent were referred through schools.
Now, your claim is not that nobody will voluntarily seek treatment until they hit bottom. It's that some people have to hit it. I disagree. I think that is a very pessimistic way of looking at addicts and dismisses a lot of potential good we could do. I believe that the fact that some people hit rock bottom is a failure on the part of society just as much as it is a failure of the addict.
But, regardless of my personal views or how much better I feel we could do, and far more important, is to address the claim that some, not all, people have to hit that bottom. This requires a citation beyond anecdotal evidence, in my opinion. You could very easily show me that some people do hit rock bottom, and that some people claim that rock bottom is necessary, but that in and of itself is not proof. If you can show me a study that shows recovery rates improving after people hit a so-called "bottom", then we can go from there. What I'm saying is that I'm aware that this belief exists, but I would like claims extolling it to be backed up with scientific evidence.
3) Many people hit what would be other people's bottom and just don't care. That's a huge problem with the "bottom" as a method of inspiring addicts; for some people, they don't stop until they are dead.
I could go on about this point but that's enough for now, I don't want you to feel like I'm Gish Galloping you.
It seemed relevant to "policing" since....well...a Police Officer was talking about it, and about how his experience with habitual drug users was that they tend to fall into crime, for which he has to lock them up, and how that caused many people to seek help.
My example was a real world instance of pretty much exactly what he said.
Yes, a police officer did come into the thread and provide an anecdote about his experience as a police officer. I'm sure other police officers have other anecdotes which do not support his ideas. That's the problem with anecdotes; we start going into real-life occurrences and personal experiences instead of looking at the big picture or solid, undeniable facts rather than how events affected us personally and we start getting into a big "nuh uh/yuh huh" battle, and it just isn't productive. I'm not calling you out personally, I'm explaining why I like to see solid assertions with citations, or at least for people to outline personal logic beyond, "This happened to me or someone I know, and now I believe this".
I think the drug addicts that fall to crime to support the habit need to be arrested and prosecuted accordingly. For some, this will be the "rock bottom" they need, and hopefully drive them towards wanting to get clean. In my experience, this has been the case.
Its always preferable that the user gets rehab and help before it comes to criminal activity to sustain the habit, but from my experiences with this issue, i have found that the users tend to not "feel like they have a problem" until its far too late. Its why rehab doesnt work in some cases, as the user refuses to see the scope of the problem. For those people, jail is usually an inevitability. Hopefully, it can also serve as a "wake up call".
The above is still relevant to this part of your post, but the bolded is something I'd like to address. The way our current criminal justice system is set up, and in particular the ways encounters with the police could potentially go, I disagree. In order to make arrests and prosecutions something an addict "needs" in order to get better, we would essentially have to overhaul our entire system and eliminate systemic racism from the picture.
Now, racial disparities are not the only problem with this idea. Involving the police in any way with drug rehabilitation adds an element of danger into what should be a healing process. You can be harmed during your arrest, you can be killed in custody either by fellow inmates or by the people supposed to be guarding you, or even yourself. Police officers simply are not trained sufficiently to deal with addicts in a way beyond handcuffing them and charging them and testifying against them in court, if necessary. Obviously there are some exceptions, but I believe that the police force is a hammer, and addiction is not a nail.
Instead of jail, we should be figuring out how to provide outreach to groups of people that typically aren't available unless they have been arrested and thrown into a system that can ruin their lives forever. Because having a drug offense on your record right now is a good way to make sure that person can't make an honest living after their recovery, and then they fall back into the spiral.
Now, if you're asking if the current "war on drugs" is effective; I dont think it is. Its pretty opposite actually. I think it makes things worse. But that's more due to lack of "follow up" to the illegal activity. Instead of locking people up, and then cutting them lose when the time is served, some community follow up and genuine help at rehab and support would go a long way.
We agree.
If you're asking if i think certain drugs should be illegal; I think they should. Weed is fine, and honestly, i kind of feel like weed would solve of lot of problems. lol.
Heroin, Meth, Crack etc need to remain illegal. Still come with punishment, but less felony and more misdomeanor. Still use the carrot and stick approach, but with more carrot, and less stick.
What I'm taking from this is that you support reforming police attitudes towards drug offenders, which is another step on the path toward agreement with me.
However, I still disagree that punishment is necessary. Addiction is a public health issue, not a law enforcement one. As long as we continue to stigmatize addiction, it becomes difficult to impossible to prevent the police from running roughshod over addicts, and also helps to allow the perpetuation of racism in the police force.
Addiction becomes a law enforcement issue when criminal activities are being used to support the habit. It's the age old question of which interests the justice system should cater to. The sense of justice for victim, rehabilitation or shielding the rest of society from lawbreakers. The answer seems to be largely a philosophical one.
Addiction becomes a law enforcement issue when criminal activities are being used to support the habit. It's the age old question of which interests the justice system should cater to. The sense of justice for victim, rehabilitation or shielding the rest of society from lawbreakers. The answer seems to be largely a philosophical one.
If the drugs themselves are not illegal, then there is far less of a reason to engage in criminal behavior, isn't there?
Anyway, as has been stated innumerous times in these debates, criminal activity such as murder, burglary, etc. is still a good reason to arrest someone regardless of drug legality or drug enforcement priorities.
Addiction becomes a law enforcement issue when criminal activities are being used to support the habit. It's the age old question of which interests the justice system should cater to. The sense of justice for victim, rehabilitation or shielding the rest of society from lawbreakers. The answer seems to be largely a philosophical one.
If the drugs themselves are not illegal, then there is far less of a reason to engage in criminal behavior, isn't there?
Anyway, as has been stated innumerous times in these debates, criminal activity such as murder, burglary, etc. is still a good reason to arrest someone regardless of drug legality or drug enforcement priorities.
Well, you just said, in your own post, that you disagree with addicts being arrested for crimes used to fuel their habit..
Addiction becomes a law enforcement issue when criminal activities are being used to support the habit. It's the age old question of which interests the justice system should cater to. The sense of justice for victim, rehabilitation or shielding the rest of society from lawbreakers. The answer seems to be largely a philosophical one.
If the drugs themselves are not illegal, then there is far less of a reason to engage in criminal behavior, isn't there?
Anyway, as has been stated innumerous times in these debates, criminal activity such as murder, burglary, etc. is still a good reason to arrest someone regardless of drug legality or drug enforcement priorities.
Well, you just said, in your own post, that you disagree with addicts being arrested for crimes used to fuel their habit..
No I didn't. I said that I disagree that drug use should be criminalized. I did not say that crime should be decriminalized. Please re-read what I wrote.
"I think the drug addicts that fall to crime to support the habit need to be arrested and prosecuted accordingly. For some, this will be the "rock bottom" they need, and hopefully drive them towards wanting to get clean. In my experience, this has been the case.
Its always preferable that the user gets rehab and help before it comes to criminal activity to sustain the habit, but from my experiences with this issue, i have found that the users tend to not "feel like they have a problem" until its far too late. Its why rehab doesnt work in some cases, as the user refuses to see the scope of the problem. For those people, jail is usually an inevitability. Hopefully, it can also serve as a "wake up call"."
"The above is still relevant to this part of your post, but the bolded is something I'd like to address. The way our current criminal justice system is set up, and in particular the ways encounters with the police could potentially go, I disagree. In order to make arrests and prosecutions something an addict "needs" in order to get better, we would essentially have to overhaul our entire system and eliminate systemic racism from the picture."
If i'm reading that wrong I apologize. Everything else I agree with.
I'd also point out that the line between "user" and "dealer" isn't always clear in the drug world. How many people sell their buddies a bit of their stash, or even just give them some? That's a delivery of a controlled substance charge, regardless of whether any money was exchanged. In fact, just buying drugs is a potential conspiracy to deliver charge.
good post @joshofalltrades .
I don't have time to go through it all there, but I really feel like at this point we are looking reasonably the same way. Same enough for government work anyhow.
I will address your point #2, and then we shall carry on with our discussion:
Every effort was made to help my friend. I personally spent hundreds, and I wasnt the only one trying to help him. From "man to man" talks, to group interventions, to scare tactics, to pleading....he lost his job, his wife, his kid (temporarily) his car, his computer, and his health. And all that just wasn't enough at the time.
Anyway, our opinions differ ever so slightly on some of the finer points, and that seems good enough for now. We've reached the path of understanding and that's about all you can hope some times.
Thanks for the effort in your reply!
So...Police Drive-by = legal as long as it targets black kids. Cool. Good to know.
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
oh yeah, only days after being acquitted in his part in jumping up on the hood of a car and shooting two unarmed black people to death, cleveland cop michael brelo is now facing assault charges for getting in a fight with his brother
A man who waved a large military knife at officers and is believed to have been radicalized by ISIS was shot and killed by police in Boston on Tuesday, according to officials.
The suspect, identified as Usaama Rahim, 26, was under 24-hour surveillance by anti-terrorism authorities, said FBI Special Agent in Charge Vincent B. Lisi.
Stroy was about someone that was shot when he was confronted four police officers, and he pulled a military knife (emphasis theirs) on them.
I missed the name of the people involved. Any idea which incident this is referring too?
This story?
Usaamah Rahim, who was fatally shot after waving a military knife at law enforcement officers in Boston, was originally plotting to behead Pamela Geller, an activist and conservative blogger, law enforcement sources told CNN on Wednesday.
But Rahim, a 26-year-old security guard who officials believe was radicalized by ISIS and other extremists, decided instead to target the "boys in blue," a reference to police, according to court documents.
"I can't wait that long," he said of the original beheading plan, according to an FBI affidavit filed in federal court in Boston on Wednesday.
A man who waved a large military knife at officers and is believed to have been radicalized by ISIS was shot and killed by police in Boston on Tuesday, according to officials.
The suspect, identified as Usaama Rahim, 26, was under 24-hour surveillance by anti-terrorism authorities, said FBI Special Agent in Charge Vincent B. Lisi.
That looks like it, thanks.
And it has a picture of the knife, which is what I wanted.
Article says there's a video of the event, but it's not released?
Ya something akin to the injection sites they have in Vancouver, somewhat broadened, and even with some regulation to allow those who want it to get it, because like others have said, if people want drugs they will get drugs, them being illegal and the war on drugs, has made them easier to obtain for all ages and personalities. Prison is one of the biggest drug markets there is, obviously it would take some work, and probably some trial and error.
But what we have is CLEARLY not working, at all, whatsoever. And while not ideal, Legalization/regulation does work towards undoing a lot of the major problems, which is basically the underground profit market for them, and their complete willingness to sell to anyone of any age.
That's a lot clearer, thanks. I went off on you because I thought you were calling for a full-on libertarian "sell meth at the grocery store" kinda deal, and it's good to see that that wasn't your plan at all. Sorry for the misunderstanding!
I agree that it's not working, but I'd rather see increased border security (focused on drug smuggling) with stiff prison sentences for offenders*. Stiff prison sentences for those caught smuggling drugs into prisons, too.
*this is an -iffy- solution. Increased border security is well and good, but it's hard to damage drug kingpins when all they send across the border are mules. We've tried partnering with foreign governments with mixed results thanks to corruption. Maybe we should try cracking down on the banks next: 10+ years in prison for executives caught laundering money?
Posts
No one said to put it in a convenience store. One person did say store but that doesn't automatically mean the local gas station. Lots of places of government controlled stores for drugs.
Nope try again
So you guys are telling me that in foreign parts the government sells hard drugs? Or is this another reference to programs like the Netherlands' where junkies can shoot up in a safe environment using clean needles and government-provided drugs? edit- because the latter is definitely not a store
Have you never seen a pharmacy? Its a a) store with b) counters and c) sells lots of heavily controlled drugs in strictly government regulated fashion with requiring varying levels of authorization to purchase drugs based on potency and effects. Hell in some areas people commonly refer to them as drug stores
It could be partially on my end too, because I had to remember, you can buy alcohol in the states from convenience stores, whereas in Canada, even alcohol is regulated to specific buildings, can't even enter them without ID.
Oh! Did you mean for addicts in treatment programs or something, right? Instead of going to the injection site they can just pick up their prescription at the drug store?
Ya something akin to the injection sites they have in Vancouver, soemwhat broadened, and even with some regulation to allow those who want it to get it, because like other s have said, if people want drugs them will get drugs, them being illegal and the war on drugs, has made them easier to obtain for all ages and personalities. Prison is one of the biggest drug markets there is, obviously it would take some work, and probably some trial and error.
But what we have is CLEARLY not working, at all, whatsoever. And while not ideal, Legalization/regulation does work towards undoing a lot of the major problems, which is basically the underground profit market for them, and their complete willingness to sell to anyone of any age.
Is that really happening though? I'm not saying that there isn't disproportionate sentencing for possession, but looking at this chart for cocaine penalties for selling is a lot steeper than possession.
http://law.jrank.org/pages/11809/Cocaine.html
In my experience even living in the small town I do, you're more likely to see addicts and small time dealers spend time in jail than you will the people that are bringing the drugs into a community. And if I can figure out who they are, I'm sure the police can too. It's just easier to catch someone on the lower end doing something clearly illegal, and addicts will sometimes try to sell some of their own supply at a higher price than they bought it to feed their addiction.
Sending an addict to jail is about as effective at stopping the drug trade as wagging our fingers at drug lords and moralizing to them about the dangers of hard drugs in society.
Well I don't see anyone using my personal experience to back up their arguments. I simply spoke about it because hey I'm empirical evidence that you don't need prison to kick a serious addiction.
B and C are simply facts.
I'm not arguing that addicts are more prone to be put in jail. I'm questioning wether users are giving higher sentences than dealers, which from a both a legal and objective standpoint makes no sense. The current method of seeing small time offenders as a "low hanging fruit" for an arrest absolutely have to be changed. I however don't think that associated crimes to drug addiction (burglary, robbery etc.) should go unpunished. Drug addiction shouldn't be a disculpa for crimes with victims. There absolutely should be rehab options in prison however.
What I'm getting at is that while yes the sentence for dealing is higher, addicts tend to try to sell to make money for their habit. So they end up getting charged with the higher offense, which I want to say is a forced decision on the courts part due to the nature of anti-drug laws, and going to federal pound-you-in-the-ass prison instead of getting the help they need.
Should there be differing sentence structures wether or not you happen to be an addict when you're dealing? It would be more apt to look at how severe the punishment is for small quantities of drugs which lies in the realm between possession and possession with the intent to distribute (where any prosecutor would push for the highest sentence)
What @WiseManTobes was arguing is that addicts are getting higher sentences than dealers, which I would argue doesn't make sense and without statistical evidence it's kinda a moot point.
Also addicts usually don't have a dime to even pay bail, while most high end dealers have multiple lawyers on retainer that argue their stuff down to fines and a finger wagging
On paper, no. In reality it is much harder to convict a smart dealer than it is a junkie. Mostly because even the smartest junkie is dumb about his habit. See at least the one judge I personally know was paid off in cocaine for a favorable deal. He had to be smart to be a judge, but I have to imagine the cocaine deals eventually bit him in the ass. Dealers, so long as they stay off their supply, have a number of nifty tricks to put the illusion of distance between them and the junky getting his drugs. That illusion becomes enough to create a valid legal argument for low sentencing.
So what happens is now we have police who can get a lot of arrests that lead to convictions by going after the customer rather than the supplier. This in turn leads to pressure to go after those arrests in order to bolster the tough on drugs and tough on crime appearance DAs with greater political aspirations love. And thus the system once again fails us because the police and DA work so hard to help each other out.
OK. I'm glad we agree that rehab is preferable to prison.
Now, let's talk about the bolded claim. This is where we are butting heads and talking past each other, I think. You are saying that you are using your anecdote about your friend hitting rock bottom in prison as proof that some people need to go to jail in order to hit that bottom and get straight. I think this is incorrect and/or not ideal on multiple levels.
1) You are assuming that since your friend's bottom happened to be jail that jail was his only possible bottom. It's entirely plausible that had he not been arrested, he would've found himself in some other awful situation which made him rethink his addiction.
2) The idea that someone must hit rock bottom in order to overcome their addiction is a myth.
Now, your claim is not that nobody will voluntarily seek treatment until they hit bottom. It's that some people have to hit it. I disagree. I think that is a very pessimistic way of looking at addicts and dismisses a lot of potential good we could do. I believe that the fact that some people hit rock bottom is a failure on the part of society just as much as it is a failure of the addict.
But, regardless of my personal views or how much better I feel we could do, and far more important, is to address the claim that some, not all, people have to hit that bottom. This requires a citation beyond anecdotal evidence, in my opinion. You could very easily show me that some people do hit rock bottom, and that some people claim that rock bottom is necessary, but that in and of itself is not proof. If you can show me a study that shows recovery rates improving after people hit a so-called "bottom", then we can go from there. What I'm saying is that I'm aware that this belief exists, but I would like claims extolling it to be backed up with scientific evidence.
3) Many people hit what would be other people's bottom and just don't care. That's a huge problem with the "bottom" as a method of inspiring addicts; for some people, they don't stop until they are dead.
I could go on about this point but that's enough for now, I don't want you to feel like I'm Gish Galloping you.
Yes, a police officer did come into the thread and provide an anecdote about his experience as a police officer. I'm sure other police officers have other anecdotes which do not support his ideas. That's the problem with anecdotes; we start going into real-life occurrences and personal experiences instead of looking at the big picture or solid, undeniable facts rather than how events affected us personally and we start getting into a big "nuh uh/yuh huh" battle, and it just isn't productive. I'm not calling you out personally, I'm explaining why I like to see solid assertions with citations, or at least for people to outline personal logic beyond, "This happened to me or someone I know, and now I believe this".
The above is still relevant to this part of your post, but the bolded is something I'd like to address. The way our current criminal justice system is set up, and in particular the ways encounters with the police could potentially go, I disagree. In order to make arrests and prosecutions something an addict "needs" in order to get better, we would essentially have to overhaul our entire system and eliminate systemic racism from the picture.
Now, racial disparities are not the only problem with this idea. Involving the police in any way with drug rehabilitation adds an element of danger into what should be a healing process. You can be harmed during your arrest, you can be killed in custody either by fellow inmates or by the people supposed to be guarding you, or even yourself. Police officers simply are not trained sufficiently to deal with addicts in a way beyond handcuffing them and charging them and testifying against them in court, if necessary. Obviously there are some exceptions, but I believe that the police force is a hammer, and addiction is not a nail.
Instead of jail, we should be figuring out how to provide outreach to groups of people that typically aren't available unless they have been arrested and thrown into a system that can ruin their lives forever. Because having a drug offense on your record right now is a good way to make sure that person can't make an honest living after their recovery, and then they fall back into the spiral.
We agree.
What I'm taking from this is that you support reforming police attitudes towards drug offenders, which is another step on the path toward agreement with me.
However, I still disagree that punishment is necessary. Addiction is a public health issue, not a law enforcement one. As long as we continue to stigmatize addiction, it becomes difficult to impossible to prevent the police from running roughshod over addicts, and also helps to allow the perpetuation of racism in the police force.
If the drugs themselves are not illegal, then there is far less of a reason to engage in criminal behavior, isn't there?
Anyway, as has been stated innumerous times in these debates, criminal activity such as murder, burglary, etc. is still a good reason to arrest someone regardless of drug legality or drug enforcement priorities.
Well, you just said, in your own post, that you disagree with addicts being arrested for crimes used to fuel their habit..
No I didn't. I said that I disagree that drug use should be criminalized. I did not say that crime should be decriminalized. Please re-read what I wrote.
"I think the drug addicts that fall to crime to support the habit need to be arrested and prosecuted accordingly. For some, this will be the "rock bottom" they need, and hopefully drive them towards wanting to get clean. In my experience, this has been the case.
Its always preferable that the user gets rehab and help before it comes to criminal activity to sustain the habit, but from my experiences with this issue, i have found that the users tend to not "feel like they have a problem" until its far too late. Its why rehab doesnt work in some cases, as the user refuses to see the scope of the problem. For those people, jail is usually an inevitability. Hopefully, it can also serve as a "wake up call"."
"The above is still relevant to this part of your post, but the bolded is something I'd like to address. The way our current criminal justice system is set up, and in particular the ways encounters with the police could potentially go, I disagree. In order to make arrests and prosecutions something an addict "needs" in order to get better, we would essentially have to overhaul our entire system and eliminate systemic racism from the picture."
If i'm reading that wrong I apologize. Everything else I agree with.
I am not supporting the abolition of law enforcement wholesale. I guess I assumed that could be inferred, but now I made that explicit.
I don't have time to go through it all there, but I really feel like at this point we are looking reasonably the same way. Same enough for government work anyhow.
I will address your point #2, and then we shall carry on with our discussion:
Every effort was made to help my friend. I personally spent hundreds, and I wasnt the only one trying to help him. From "man to man" talks, to group interventions, to scare tactics, to pleading....he lost his job, his wife, his kid (temporarily) his car, his computer, and his health. And all that just wasn't enough at the time.
Anyway, our opinions differ ever so slightly on some of the finer points, and that seems good enough for now. We've reached the path of understanding and that's about all you can hope some times.
Thanks for the effort in your reply!
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
saw it coming months ago
still incredibly mad about it
http://www.cleveland.com/bay-village/index.ssf/2015/06/cleveland_police_officer_micha.html#incart_m-rpt-1
They didn't stop. Watch the video again. The cop jumps out while the car is still moving.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Stroy was about someone that was shot when he was confronted four police officers, and he pulled a military knife (emphasis theirs) on them.
I missed the name of the people involved. Any idea which incident this is referring too?
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Probably this.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/03/us/boston-police-shooting/index.html
Looks like the knife in question was a Ka-Bar.
Edit: Too slow
That looks like it, thanks.
And it has a picture of the knife, which is what I wanted.
Article says there's a video of the event, but it's not released?
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
That's a lot clearer, thanks. I went off on you because I thought you were calling for a full-on libertarian "sell meth at the grocery store" kinda deal, and it's good to see that that wasn't your plan at all. Sorry for the misunderstanding!
I agree that it's not working, but I'd rather see increased border security (focused on drug smuggling) with stiff prison sentences for offenders*. Stiff prison sentences for those caught smuggling drugs into prisons, too.
*this is an -iffy- solution. Increased border security is well and good, but it's hard to damage drug kingpins when all they send across the border are mules. We've tried partnering with foreign governments with mixed results thanks to corruption. Maybe we should try cracking down on the banks next: 10+ years in prison for executives caught laundering money?