DVD Talk
More than 1% of All Adult Americans Are in Prison [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum

PDA

View Full Version : More than 1% of All Adult Americans Are in Prison


Sean O'Hara
03-03-08, 12:19 AM
From the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Prison-Population.html?_r=1&oref=slogin).

For the first time in U.S. history, more than one of every 100 adults is in jail or prison, according to a new report documenting America's rank as the world's No. 1 incarcerator. It urges states to curtail corrections spending by placing fewer low-risk offenders behind bars.

Using state-by-state data, the report says 2,319,258 Americans were in jail or prison at the start of 2008 -- one out of every 99.1 adults. Whether per capita or in raw numbers, it's more than any other nation.

[...]

The report said the United States incarcerates more people than any other nation, far ahead of more populous China with 1.5 million people behind bars. It said the U.S. also is the leader in inmates per capita (750 per 100,000 people), ahead of Russia (628 per 100,000) and other former Soviet bloc nations which round out the Top 10.

We're #1! We're #1!

Incidentally, about a quarter of people in prison are there for non-violent drug offenses (http://www.cjcj.org/pubs/poor/pp.html) to say nothing of other victimless crimes like gambling and prostitution.

MartinBlank
03-03-08, 12:55 AM
I know China doesn't fuck around.

I remember this story (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_P._Fay) from back in High School.

If there were actual repercussion to actions I'd say crime and especially repeat crime would be reduced. But what do I know, I'm not a criminal :shrug:

Project Exile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Exile) is your friend :)

Superboy
03-03-08, 04:29 AM
Interesting.

It's not because we have the greatest inequality in wealth, because we don't.

It's not because we have the most oppressive government, because we don't.

It's not because we have the worst race relations of any country, because we don't.

It's not because we have a culture that glorifies violence anymore than any other, because we don't.

So what is it?

Giantrobo
03-03-08, 07:07 AM
When this story came out a few days ago I had to laugh at how the reporters where treating it. It was almost as if it's somehow America's Fault and NOT the fault of knucklehead criminals committing crimes. :lol:

I guess some would argue that our laws may be "too strict" in certain areas but still...

Red Dog
03-03-08, 07:25 AM
And just think of how much larger it would be without the criminal procedure SCt rulings of the 50s/60s.


Incidentally, about a quarter of people in prison are there for non-violent drug offenses

We sure are kicking our enemy's ass in that War aren't we?

al_bundy
03-03-08, 07:37 AM
all these non-violent drug offenders will commit a lot of property crimes if they are let out to support their habits

spainlinx0
03-03-08, 08:06 AM
I know when I couldn't afford weed I stole from people all the time.

Sean O'Hara
03-03-08, 08:06 AM
all these non-violent drug offenders will commit a lot of property crimes if they are let out to support their habits

And if it were legalized so that all these non-violent drug offenders weren't put into close contact with criminals, and they couldn't get in hoc to people who'll break their legs for not paying, do you think drug addicts will commit significantly more property crimes than alcoholics?

spainlinx0
03-03-08, 08:10 AM
And if it were legalized so that all these non-violent drug offenders weren't put into close contact with criminals, and they couldn't get in hoc to people who'll break their legs for not paying, do you think drug addicts will commit significantly more property crimes than alcoholics?

But what about the CHILDREN?!

Giantrobo
03-03-08, 10:32 AM
And if it were legalized so that all these non-violent drug offenders weren't put into close contact with criminals, and they couldn't get in hoc to people who'll break their legs for not paying, do you think drug addicts will commit significantly more property crimes than alcoholics?

Maybe, maybe not. Either way...like current drug laws or not...apparently they're breaking laws and that's why they're locked up.

It's anecdotal, but having both Drug addicts and alcoholics in my family I could see where the Drug users were in and out of jail far more than the boozers. And they weren't always in jail for straight up Drug offenses.

Giantrobo
03-03-08, 10:36 AM
I know when I couldn't afford weed I stole from people all the time.

My oldest brother stole from me and others in my family so it's hard to for me to feel bad when they end up in jail. I realize they have a "problem", but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be held responsible for commiting crime.

BTW, he's currently serving life in prison over something he did so I guess he falls into those stats....

wendersfan
03-03-08, 10:44 AM
It's anecdotal, but having both Drug addicts and alcoholics in my family I could see where the Drug users were in and out of jail far more than the boozers. And they weren't always in jail for straight up Drug offenses.Drug use, especially beyond the "joint on the weekend" level, makes one a <i>de facto</i> criminal, and criminals associate with other criminals, and, one would assume, promote criminal behavior across their population, including criminal behavior of a type with which they have no prior history. Therefore, I would argue that removing the criminality from casual drug use would no longer encourage otherwise law-abiding individuals from associating with criminals. The counter argument would be that drug users make the conscious decision to engage in criminal acts, therefore exhibiting a proclivity towards antisocial, even criminal, behavior.

AGuyNamedMike
03-03-08, 10:46 AM
Drug use, especially beyond the "joint on the weekend" level, makes one a <i>de facto</i> criminal, and criminals associate with other criminals, and, one would assume, promote criminal behavior across their population, including criminal behavior of a type with which they have no prior history. Therefore, I would argue that removing the criminality from casual drug use would no longer encourage otherwise law-abiding individuals from associating with criminals. The counter argument would be that drug users make the conscious decision to engage in criminal acts, therefore exhibiting a proclivity towards antisocial, even criminal, behavior.

:up: to both points of view. It's never just one way.

wendersfan
03-03-08, 10:48 AM
:up:Are you applauding my ability to argue both sides of any random issue, or my lack of conviction to take a stand either way? :lol:

(Never mind, your edit cleared it up. :()

Giantrobo
03-03-08, 11:03 AM
Drug use, especially beyond the "joint on the weekend" level, makes one a <i>de facto</i> criminal, and criminals associate with other criminals, and, one would assume, promote criminal behavior across their population, including criminal behavior of a type with which they have no prior history. Therefore, I would argue that removing the criminality from casual drug use would no longer encourage otherwise law-abiding individuals from associating with criminals.

Sure. Mind you, in general I don't have a problem with taking a good look at drug laws and maybe even rewriting some of them. I'm not totally closed minded on the issue even if it seems that way to some of you.


The counter argument would be that drug users make the conscious decision to engage in criminal acts, therefore exhibiting a proclivity towards antisocial, even criminal, behavior.


It sure seems that way...

Ranger
03-03-08, 11:14 AM
I don't think anyone is complaining about Michael Vick being sent prison.

Although, I probably could say the same about Roger Clemens if he gets sent away too. :lol:

One comment I will make now on this: if I had my way with the traffic laws, the national prison population would double.

Groucho
03-03-08, 11:26 AM
all these non-violent drug offenders will commit a lot of property crimes if they are let out to support their habitsAll of them? Really? Then prosecute them for theft. Don't prosecute them for being "potential thieves".

adamblast
03-03-08, 11:31 AM
This is bound to sound wierd, but I don't think I'd mind prison much. It's practically no deterrent to me at all. Disappointing my family & friends--and my own sense of self--is what keeps me on the up&up.

GreenMonkey
03-03-08, 02:51 PM
Drug use, especially beyond the "joint on the weekend" level, makes one a <i>de facto</i> criminal, and criminals associate with other criminals, and, one would assume, promote criminal behavior across their population, including criminal behavior of a type with which they have no prior history. Therefore, I would argue that removing the criminality from casual drug use would no longer encourage otherwise law-abiding individuals from associating with criminals. The counter argument would be that drug users make the conscious decision to engage in criminal acts, therefore exhibiting a proclivity towards antisocial, even criminal, behavior.

Great post!

I tend towards the former as a marginally bigger % of the impact, but not entirely as the counter argument has plenty of merit.

kvrdave
03-03-08, 03:35 PM
Interesting.

It's not because we have the greatest inequality in wealth, because we don't.

It's not because we have the most oppressive government, because we don't.

It's not because we have the worst race relations of any country, because we don't.

It's not because we have a culture that glorifies violence anymore than any other, because we don't.

So what is it?

It's like Bowling for Columbine all over. It isn't the gun laws either. It's the "culture of fear" that is the problem. Now let's go visit Charlton Heston and forget that "culture of fear" bullshit. It must be the guns. :lol:

eXcentris
03-03-08, 08:04 PM
So what is it?

The US does have a culture of violence, the US sucks at dealing with social issues (you know, the whole individual freedoms and liberties thingy :) ). Combine the two and there's your answer.

Giantrobo
03-04-08, 12:58 AM
More Midnight Basketball!! :up:

Jeremy517
03-04-08, 02:37 AM
And if it were legalized so that all these non-violent drug offenders weren't put into close contact with criminals, and they couldn't get in hoc to people who'll break their legs for not paying, do you think drug addicts will commit significantly more property crimes than alcoholics?

Meth heads wouldn't likely be able to hold a job, so to answer your question, it depends on the drug. Most would be fine though.

VinVega
03-04-08, 07:48 AM
The drugs laws are why so many more people are in jail in this country. Just my 2 cents.

Tracer Bullet
03-04-08, 08:16 AM
The drugs laws are why so many more people are in jail in this country. Just my 2 cents.

Gee, really?

Groucho
03-04-08, 08:24 AM
There was a sign on the train this morning: "Buy, Sell, or Use -- the Result is the Same" with a pair of handcuffs on it. If we're treating drug users the same way we are treating drug dealers -- that's a problem right there.

MartinBlank
03-04-08, 08:41 AM
^I know right! I should totally be able to shoot-up black tar heroin without you squares riding my case. Fascists!

VinVega
03-04-08, 08:54 AM
^I know right! I should totally be able to shoot-up black tar heroin without you squares riding my case. Fascists!
I bet if we threw you in jail, that would solve the problem both for you and society. :up:

Tracer Bullet
03-04-08, 08:57 AM
^I know right! I should totally be able to shoot-up black tar heroin without you squares riding my case. Fascists!

I'm pleased to see that we have another convert to legalizing drugs.

al_bundy
03-04-08, 09:38 AM
^I know right! I should totally be able to shoot-up black tar heroin without you squares riding my case. Fascists!

why not?

half the prescription drugs that most doctors give out like candy these days aren't too different from heroin and other so called illegal drugs

kvrdave
03-04-08, 11:12 AM
The US does have a culture of violence, the US sucks at dealing with social issues (you know, the whole individual freedoms and liberties thingy :) ). Combine the two and there's your answer.

The answer to the problem in most countries is to reduce individual freedoms and liberties. So far, we haven't been willing to do that.

Tough thing to balance.

Tracer Bullet
03-04-08, 11:21 AM
The answer to the problem in most countries is to reduce individual freedoms and liberties. So far, we haven't been willing to do that.

What exactly is the "Drug War", then?

wendersfan
03-04-08, 11:37 AM
What exactly is the "Drug War", then?But the drug war doesn't limit the freedoms of real Americans, just dirty hippies (and African-Americans), so it doesn't count.

Pharoh
03-04-08, 11:43 AM
And if it were legalized so that all these non-violent drug offenders weren't put into close contact with criminals, and they couldn't get in hoc to people who'll break their legs for not paying, do you think drug addicts will commit significantly more property crimes than alcoholics?


Yes, of course. Unless drugs such as crack, meth, and heroin will be as readily available as alcohol is currently. I don't think that type of availability is something to strive for in this nation.

wendersfan
03-04-08, 11:46 AM
Yes, of course. Unless drugs such as crack, meth, and heroin will be as readily available as alcohol is currently. I don't think that type of availability is something to strive for in this nation.This may come as a shock to some, but I agree with this. I'm all for the decriminalization of most, if not all, drugs, but I don't relish the idea of there being "meth bars", where people go in, sit at a counter, and smoke crank while they watch roller derby for professional wrestling.

kvrdave
03-04-08, 11:48 AM
What exactly is the "Drug War", then?

I'm not saying that isn't part of it, but are the same drugs that are illegal here legal in Canada, England, etc? Just trying to compare apples to apples.

Ginwen
03-04-08, 11:57 AM
Meth heads wouldn't likely be able to hold a job, so to answer your question, it depends on the drug. Most would be fine though.
When I used to work in food service, I knew several meth heads that held jobs as long as I was working there (about 4 years).

Tracer Bullet
03-04-08, 12:00 PM
I'm not saying that isn't part of it, but are the same drugs that are illegal here legal in Canada, England, etc? Just trying to compare apples to apples.

How do you get high off apples? PM me.

Red Dog
03-04-08, 12:32 PM
I don't think having laws that restrict what one may put into their body of their own choice is something the nation should strive for either, yet here we are.

GreenMonkey
03-04-08, 02:34 PM
I'm all for legalizing the non-highly addictive and low-risk drugs (marijuana, for example)...but I think it is fine to keep highly addictive or dangerous drugs illegal.

Ranger
03-04-08, 02:36 PM
Yeah, keep throwing meth cookers in prison.

Tracer Bullet
03-04-08, 02:37 PM
I'm all for legalizing the non-highly addictive and low-risk drugs (marijuana, for example)...but I think it is fine to keep highly addictive or dangerous drugs illegal.

Unless they're FDA-approved, of course. Then it's all good. :thumbsup:

Jeremy517
03-04-08, 02:40 PM
When I used to work in food service, I knew several meth heads that held jobs as long as I was working there (about 4 years).

Small sample size and anecdotal evidence. Those are the exceptions, not the norm.

classicman2
03-04-08, 02:41 PM
When I used to work in food service, I knew several meth heads that held jobs as long as I was working there (about 4 years).

Did they have any teeth left? ;)

Red Dog
03-04-08, 02:58 PM
Unless they're FDA-approved, of course. Then it's all good. :thumbsup:


That and what exactly does 'highly addictive' and 'dangerous' mean? Is there a way one can quantify this objectively? Otherwise, you are just setting another arbitrary line of demarcation between legal and illegal.

kvrdave
03-04-08, 03:33 PM
Hmmmm, it would be interesting to talk to past drug users. Say, people who used a drug on a regular basis, but for whatever reason, have not used in 2 years.

I would bet marijuana users would say there is not problem with it being legal.

It would be interesting to see what the heroine/coke/meth users would say. It would be an interesting perspective.

Tracer Bullet
03-04-08, 03:36 PM
Hmmmm, it would be interesting to talk to past drug users. Say, people who used a drug on a regular basis, but for whatever reason, have not used in 2 years.

I would bet marijuana users would say there is not problem with it being legal.

It would be interesting to see what the heroine/coke/meth users would say. It would be an interesting perspective.

Who cares? I'm sure a lot of former alcoholics would say they want alcohol made illegal.

GreenMonkey
03-05-08, 08:23 AM
That and what exactly does 'highly addictive' and 'dangerous' mean? Is there a way one can quantify this objectively? Otherwise, you are just setting another arbitrary line of demarcation between legal and illegal.

I know there have been studies done on the addictiveness of various drugs. So they have been rated. And the side effects / OD risk of most illegal drugs are well known, studied and documented.

There's a few of the FDA-approved drugs that I question their necessity
(especially oxycontin) but prescription painkillers exist for a purpose - for dealing with pain.

Birrman54
03-05-08, 08:35 AM
This may come as a shock to some, but I agree with this. I'm all for the decriminalization of most, if not all, drugs, but I don't relish the idea of there being "meth bars", where people go in, sit at a counter, and smoke crank while they watch roller derby for professional wrestling.

But aren't Crack and Meth direct results of drug prohibition? We try and make trafficking cocaine as difficult as possible, so dealers developed an inexpensive derivative that was easier to sell in individual doses. If heroin and cocaine weren't criminalized, I really doubt meth or crack would have ever come into existence.

movielib
03-05-08, 09:35 AM
But aren't Crack and Meth direct results of drug prohibition? We try and make trafficking cocaine as difficult as possible, so dealers developed an inexpensive derivative that was easier to sell in individual doses. If heroin and cocaine weren't criminalized, I really doubt meth or crack would have ever come into existence.
:up: Milton Friedman always said that.

wendersfan
03-05-08, 10:01 AM
This thread is heading in directions I never thought it would, but consider this question - what is the elasticity of demand of a particular type of drug, given the entrance of a substitute good into the market? Meth may have been created as a substitute for cocaine, but now that meth exists and there is a demand for it, can cocaine (if reintroduced into the market in sufficient quantities) be an adequate substitute? How much does "brand loyalty" count for drug users?

VinVega
03-05-08, 10:05 AM
This thread is heading in directions I never thought it would, but consider this question - what is the elasticity of demand of a particular type of drug, given the entrance of a substitute good into the market? Meth may have been created as a substitute for cocaine, but now that meth exists and there is a demand for it, can cocaine (if reintroduced into the market in sufficient quantities) be an adequate substitute? How much does "brand loyalty" count for drug users?
You know I took a wrong turn the other day and wound up driving through a rough neighborhood. I was stopped at a light and the crack dealer who knocked on my window said the exact same thing.

wendersfan
03-05-08, 10:08 AM
Vin, are you making fun of me? :lol:

Red Dog
03-05-08, 10:11 AM
I think wenders should go down to cracktown, do some research, and give us a nice graph of the results.

kvrdave
03-05-08, 10:30 AM
Who cares? I'm sure a lot of former alcoholics would say they want alcohol made illegal.

<img src=http://www.cathouse-fcc.org/gifs-jpegs/frisbee00.jpg>


I just said it would be interesting, not that we should set policy based on it.

Tracer Bullet
03-05-08, 10:51 AM
That's not a dog.

VinVega
03-05-08, 10:55 AM
Vin, are you making fun of me? :lol:
I can't compete with you intellectually, so this is all I have left. :sad:

kvrdave
03-05-08, 10:56 AM
That's not a dog.

There aren't any cliffs around here. :(

Tracer Bullet
03-05-08, 10:59 AM
This thread is heading in directions I never thought it would, but consider this question - what is the elasticity of demand of a particular type of drug, given the entrance of a substitute good into the market? Meth may have been created as a substitute for cocaine, but now that meth exists and there is a demand for it, can cocaine (if reintroduced into the market in sufficient quantities) be an adequate substitute? How much does "brand loyalty" count for drug users?

Not being a drug addict, I really have no idea, but I would tend to think that they would do whatever drug was cheapest that gave them the sort of high they desired.

GreenMonkey
03-05-08, 11:49 AM
This thread is heading in directions I never thought it would, but consider this question - what is the elasticity of demand of a particular type of drug, given the entrance of a substitute good into the market? Meth may have been created as a substitute for cocaine, but now that meth exists and there is a demand for it, can cocaine (if reintroduced into the market in sufficient quantities) be an adequate substitute? How much does "brand loyalty" count for drug users?


My wife has a friend that was (is? who knows) addicted to oxys amongst other things (I don't want to know). When her husband got arrested for dealing them (he was milking a prescription and dealing) she eventually ended up driving to Detroit or Flint or something to score some heroin as a substitute.

I can't remember if that was before or after they took her kids away but I'm pretty sure it was before - subsequent jail time and stripping of parental rights doesn't seem to have fixed the problem, from what I hear (the wife doesn't talk to her much these days).

From what I know of it, heroin often becomes the substitute for oxy because they're both opiates with similiar effects, and it's a lot cheaper. I imagine other drugs run similiarly.

wendersfan
03-05-08, 12:04 PM
Heroin and oxy are very similar, pharmacologically. I don't think methamphetamine and cocaine are so closely related.

Superboy
03-05-08, 09:40 PM
Heroin and oxy are very similar, pharmacologically. I don't think methamphetamine and cocaine are so closely related.

They may be related pharmacologically, but they have two totally different effects on the body.

Oxy, like most opioids, is first processed through the liver and then crosses the blood-brain barrier. Heroin immediately crosses the blood brain barrier. Because of the delay between the administration of the drug and the effects of the drug vary, so does the addictive potential; think Pavlov's dog. This is why cigarettes are considered to be as addictive as heroin, because the nicotine crosses the blood-brain barrier incredibly fast - usually within 8 seconds.

Methamphetamine and cocaine may not be related pharmacologically, but they do have similar addictive properties because they act in more or less the same manner on the body.

Superboy
03-06-08, 04:47 AM
Regardless, the war on drugs cannot end.

NORML54601
03-06-08, 05:10 AM
Yeah, I'm not reading the whole thread but if we ended the drug war that number would drop dramatically.

bhk
03-06-08, 07:25 AM
Well, as usual, everyone except me(and those that agree with me) is wrong. :D
The thing that we should focus on is that around 99% of adults in this country aren't criminals. That's pretty good for a fairly heterogenous country with a population as large as ours.

Oh and I have no problem throwing dope heads into jail. Let the violent criminals at them, then the dope heads will realize the true meaning of "chronic anxiety" or what ever other excuse they use to be dope heads.

al_bundy
03-06-08, 07:36 AM
what is the difference between a dope head in jail and someone who runs to the doctor for prozac or something similar every time they have a bad day?

chances are that one has health insurance and the other doesn't

bhk
03-06-08, 07:44 AM
what is the difference between a dope head in jail and someone who runs to the doctor for prozac or something similar every time they have a bad day?

chances are that one has health insurance and the other doesn't

The difference is, the dopehead uses their money to buy dope and cigarettes while expecting the taxpayer to pay for his/her healthcare.
Prozac and other SSRIs are probably one of the most overused medications in this country.

Red Dog
03-06-08, 08:12 AM
Not only is there an inane War of Drugs, but there is now apparently a War on Little Plastic Baggies:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/826059,CST-NWS-bagban05.article#

City may ban little baggies
COUNCIL | They're 'Marketing 101' for drug dealers, cop says

March 5, 2008
BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter

Tiny plastic bags used to sell small quantities of heroin, crack cocaine, marijuana and other drugs would be banned in Chicago, under a crackdown advanced Tuesday by a City Council committee.

Ald. Robert Fioretti (2nd) persuaded the Health Committee to ban possession of "self-sealing plastic bags under two inches in either height or width," after picking up 15 of the bags on a recent Sunday afternoon stroll through a West Side park.

Lt. Kevin Navarro, commanding officer of the Chicago Police Department's Narcotics and Gang Unit, said the ordinance will be an "important tool" to go after grocery stores, health food stores and other businesses. The bags are used by the thousand to sell small quantities of drugs at $10 or $20 a bag.

Navarro referred to the plastic bags as "Marketing 101 for the drug dealers." Many of them have symbols, allowing drug users to ask for "Superman" or "Blue Dolphin" instead of the drug itself, he said.

Prior to the final vote, Ald. Walter Burnett (27th) expressed concern about arresting innocent people. He noted that extra buttons that come with suits, shirts and blouses -- and jewelry that's been repaired -- come in similar plastic bags.

Burnett was reassured by language that states "one reasonably should know that such items will be or are being used" to package, transfer, deliver or store a controlled substance. Violators would be punished by a $1,500 fine.

Health Committee Chairman Ed Smith (28th) said the ban is part of a desperate effort to stop what he called "the most destructive force" in Chicago neighborhoods.

"We need to use every measure that we possibly can to stop it because it is destroying our kids," he said.



So how long until they ban the next size bag up?

Nausicaa
03-06-08, 08:15 AM
This may come as a shock to some, but I agree with this. I'm all for the decriminalization of most, if not all, drugs, but I don't relish the idea of there being "meth bars", where people go in, sit at a counter, and smoke crank while they watch roller derby for professional wrestling.

It's important to remember that the advent of methamphetamine and crack-cocaine, two of the most insidious illegal drugs, was a direct result of the drug war. These two drugs were created as cheap highs with a strong potential for addiction, while also being easy to manufacture and distribute quickly. It is unlikely that, in the event of the legalization of other drugs, it would even be necessary to legalize these two. But other posters have brought up good questions on the elasticity of demand regarding some of these drugs.

If I had to estimate, I would say that, for addicts, nothing would really change in the present when it came to seeking out these drugs. With treatment though, their numbers will be reduced. Going forward, I think you'd find that crack and meth would quickly fade in popularity, and would struggle to find users in a free market where safer, more satisfying drugs were available.

In any case, lets also not forget that the biggest manufacturer and distributor of amphetamines are pharmaceutical companies. These drugs are handed out far too easily and are commonly prescribed to children. Abuse of prescription amphetamines is a major problem - especially among students who use them to stay awake for long periods of time to help them study without affecting their party schedule.

The openness with which college students discuss the usage of these drugs suggests that they are unaware of the potentially serious health consequences.

Nausicaa
03-06-08, 08:20 AM
Not only is there an inane War of Drugs, but there is now apparently a War on Little Plastic Baggies:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/826059,CST-NWS-bagban05.article#




So how long until they ban the next size bag up?

Good thing I only buy by quarter oz.

What a stupid idea. Ed Smith even managed to touch on the "children" and the "neighborhoods". Never heard that before.

maxfisher
03-06-08, 08:25 AM
Well, as usual, everyone except me(and those that agree with me) is wrong. :D
The thing that we should focus on is that around 99% of adults in this country aren't criminals. That's pretty good for a fairly heterogenous country with a population as large as ours.

Actually, you're completely wrong. Not that the gov't is the most reliable source for accurate information on this topic, but according to the ONDCP, these were the percentages of people who had used illicit drugs, as of 2001:

Age 12-17 - 28.4%
Age 18-25 - 55.6%
Age 26-34 - 53.3%
Age 35+ - 38.4%

If anything, I'd guess those numbers are low. Regardless, unless you're defining criminal as something other than someone who breaks the law, it's utterly absurd to claim that 99% of adults in this country aren't criminals.

Birrman54
03-06-08, 08:58 AM
Well, as usual, everyone except me(and those that agree with me) is wrong. :D
The thing that we should focus on is that around 99% of adults in this country aren't criminals. That's pretty good for a fairly heterogenous country with a population as large as ours.

Oh and I have no problem throwing dope heads into jail. Let the violent criminals at them, then the dope heads will realize the true meaning of "chronic anxiety" or what ever other excuse they use to be dope heads.

I agree, people who do things that I don't approve of should be put in prison and raped.

Birrman54
03-06-08, 09:08 AM
A superb article from David Simon and Ed Burns, creators and writers of HBO's The Wire

The Wire's War on the Drug War

We write a television show. Measured against more thoughtful and meaningful occupations, this is not the best seat from which to argue public policy or social justice. Still, those viewers who followed The Wire our HBO drama that tried to portray all sides of inner-city collapse, including the drug war, with as much detail and as little judgment as we could muster tell us they've invested in the fates of our characters. They worry or grieve for Bubbles, Bodie or Wallace, certain that these characters are fictional yet knowing they are rooted in the reality of the other America, the one rarely acknowledged by anything so overt as a TV drama.

These viewers, admittedly a small shard of the TV universe, deluge us with one question: What can we do? If there are two Americas separate and unequal and if the drug war has helped produce a psychic chasm between them, how can well-meaning, well-intentioned people begin to bridge those worlds?

And for five seasons, we answered lamely, offering arguments about economic priorities or drug policy, debating theoreticals within our tangled little drama. We were storytellers, not advocates; we ducked the question as best we could.

Yet this war grinds on, flooding our prisons, devouring resources, turning city neighborhoods into free-fire zones. To what end? State and federal prisons are packed with victims of the drug conflict. A new report by the Pew Center shows that 1 of every 100 adults in the U.S. and 1 in 15 black men over 18 is currently incarcerated. That's the world's highest rate of imprisonment.

The drug war has ravaged law enforcement too. In cities where police agencies commit the most resources to arresting their way out of their drug problems, the arrest rates for violent crime murder, rape, aggravated assault have declined. In Baltimore, where we set The Wire, drug arrests have skyrocketed over the past three decades, yet in that same span, arrest rates for murder have gone from 80% and 90% to half that. Lost in an unwinnable drug war, a new generation of law officers is no longer capable of investigating crime properly, having learned only to make court pay by grabbing cheap, meaningless drug arrests off the nearest corner.

What the drugs themselves have not destroyed, the warfare against them has. And what once began, perhaps, as a battle against dangerous substances long ago transformed itself into a venal war on our underclass. Since declaring war on drugs nearly 40 years ago, we've been demonizing our most desperate citizens, isolating and incarcerating them and otherwise denying them a role in the American collective. All to no purpose. The prison population doubles and doubles again; the drugs remain.

Our leaders? There aren't any politicians Democrat or Republican willing to speak truth on this. Instead, politicians compete to prove themselves more draconian than thou, to embrace America's most profound and enduring policy failure.

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right," wrote Thomas Paine when he called for civil disobedience against monarchy the flawed national policy of his day. In a similar spirit, we offer a small idea that is, perhaps, no small idea. It will not solve the drug problem, nor will it heal all civic wounds. It does not yet address questions of how the resources spent warring with our poor over drug use might be better spent on treatment or education or job training, or anything else that might begin to restore those places in America where the only economic engine remaining is the illegal drug economy. It doesn't resolve the myriad complexities that a retreat from war to sanity will require. All it does is open a range of intricate, paradoxical issues. But this is what we can do and what we will do.

If asked to serve on a jury deliberating a violation of state or federal drug laws, we will vote to acquit, regardless of the evidence presented. Save for a prosecution in which acts of violence or intended violence are alleged, we will to borrow Justice Harry Blackmun's manifesto against the death penalty no longer tinker with the machinery of the drug war. No longer can we collaborate with a government that uses nonviolent drug offenses to fill prisons with its poorest, most damaged and most desperate citizens.

Jury nullification is American dissent, as old and as heralded as the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, who was acquitted of seditious libel against the royal governor of New York, and absent a government capable of repairing injustices, it is legitimate protest. If some few episodes of a television entertainment have caused others to reflect on the war zones we have created in our cities and the human beings stranded there, we ask that those people might also consider their conscience. And when the lawyers or the judge or your fellow jurors seek explanation, think for a moment on Bubbles or Bodie or Wallace. And remember that the lives being held in the balance aren't fictional.
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1719872,00.html

movielib
03-06-08, 09:37 AM
I agree, people who do things that I don't approve of should be put in prison and raped.
Especially if they're in prison for doing something that violates no one else's rights!

movielib
03-06-08, 09:40 AM
A superb article from David Simon and Ed Burns, creators and writers of HBO's The Wire

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1719872,00.html
:up::up::up::up:

Sean O'Hara
03-06-08, 11:05 AM
The difference is, the dopehead uses their money to buy dope and cigarettes while expecting the taxpayer to pay for his/her healthcare.

Whereas if someone has health insurance through their employer and uses it to pay for a prescription drug habit, she's making her co-workers subsidize her habit directly.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0