The World According to Nick
Politics, News, Photography, and Triathlons... What don't I talk about?
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
<< The Man You Probably Never Heard Of... The Problem With Subtle Racism... >>
More Proof That The War on Drugs Harms Society

The Journal Sentinel is reporting on how drug sentences for blacks and Hispanics are typically harsher than for whites.

African-Americans and Hispanics convicted of drug trafficking in Wisconsin are more likely to wind up in prison than white drug dealers, according to a report on race and sentencing by the state Sentencing Commission.

Compared with whites, Hispanics are 2 1/2 times as likely to be imprisoned, while blacks are nearly twice as likely to end up behind bars for dealing drugs, according to the report issued last month.

The article is all the rage around the blogosphere right now, but mostly because it talks about a favorite topic among many... racism and prison.  For me, this article once again brings to the front a basic question about society.  Why are we still fighting the War on DrugsTM?  I saw the numbers of prison terms being dolled out for even minor drug dealing charges against non-violent offenders and it just amazed me.  The vast majority of these cases were non-violent drug offenders.  Sure, they were selling drugs, but the reality is that most people who buy drugs also sell them to some degree.  And if they aren't actually selling, the amount of drugs on your person which it takes to be classified as a "drug dealer" is so pathetically small, that practically anyone can be considered a drug dealer under current law.

Here we have an significant group of people were are operating in a market that the government created... ironically enough... a black market.  The government created the problem, and now in its overzealous enforcement of these laws, is slowly creating an entire generation of people who at one point in time have been in prison.  And what does that serve?  Who does it help to have non-violent drug offenders in prison?  It certainly doesn't serve the prisoner, who is now further behind the eight ball than they were before.  It doesn't serve the addicts who bought from this person, since they don't think they were harmed by the sale, and will just go to another dealer.

The reason why drugs are supposedly illegal today is because, although neither drug dealers nor buyers are harmed in any classic way by the sale, somehow "society as a whole" is harmed by the selling of drugs.  But is society helped by all these people in prison?

# Posted at 3:22 PM by Nick  |  Comment Feed Link 20 Comments  |  No Trackbacks

 Add to del.icio.us |  Digg this Post | Filed Under: Politics

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:41:04 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
Because drugs ruin lives Nick.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007 5:35:13 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
And prison doesn't?!
Wednesday, September 26, 2007 6:08:04 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
I've been an outlaw for nearly forty years now, and given how the law views splitting a bag with friends, I've been a dealer. I've seen more lives ruined by alcohol than by drugs in this time, and the total number of ruined lives I've seen has been trivial compared to the damage I've seen done by the War on Some Drugs.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007 9:53:22 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
It comes down to economics. Drugs, and alcohol is a drug, can and often does ruin lives. If it only ruined that one person's life, let'em have it. But I have seen too many kids come into foster care because they were left alone because dad was in jail for dealing and mom was out turning tricks for crack. I have heard of too many people killed by a drunk driver. I have heard of too many people shot and killed due to a fight over drugs.

But it is cheaper to lock them all up than it is to provide treatment for those that need it. It's about society's value system. They care more about money than their fellow humans.
capper
Wednesday, September 26, 2007 10:35:47 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
Capper, dad wouldn't be in jail if drugs were legal. Nobody would be getting shot over them, either. Half of the problems you're citing as a reason to continue the WOD are actually great reasons to stop it.

Fred, drugs ruin more lives being illegal than they would being legal. That's my belief.

I'll tell you this, too. The day it becomes legal I'm going to get me some marijuana from Walgreens and walk down the street smoking the biggest joint you've ever seen. Unfortunately, I'll probably be 87, so I'll be walking slowly. But I'm still gonna do it.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007 10:41:54 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
Nick and Triticale, I couldn't agree with you more. This is one of the issues that separates the "men from the boys" as far as conservatism goes. Or in my case, the "women from the girls".

I don't appreciate government telling me what's good for me or not good for me. That's my main reason for opposing the War on Drugs. (Love the trademark, by the way, Nick. ;)) The next reason is obviously the cost. The next one after that is the fact that I don't believe that "some drugs" (and you know what I'm talking about) are bad. When's the last time somebody went ballistic after smoking a J? The biggest anyone has to worry about is the slow-motion argument over who's going to run over to Kwik Trip to get some Doritos, or which Will Farrel movie you're going to watch next.

What a crazy, nanny-state country we live in.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007 10:42:57 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
Scott pretty much got it. Most of the crime that exists because of drugs these days has nothing to do with the drugs themselves. There are very few crimes where some guy got stoned out of his mind, and took a gun, and started shooting people. Not that wild things like that don't occur, but its the exception. That majority of crime related that occurs because of the War on Drugs occurs in an effort by gangs and thugs to control the black market on drugs. If the black market didn't exist, because they were legal, then there would be nothing to control.
Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:12:09 AM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
Time was that alcohol distributors got into gun battles over distribution rights. One of these even got its own name - the St. Valentine's Massacre. Something changes, and now people don't kill each other over alcohol any more.
Thursday, September 27, 2007 11:55:26 AM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
Couldn't agree more Nick. And I think Scott makes a great point about Walgreens. Isn't it a lot safer for drugs to come from Walgreens than some a-hole's basement? And what streetgang could win a turf war against Walgreens? And if there was a legit market for recreational drugs, I'm guessing that it wouldn't be long before legit drug companies were developing safer drugs with fewer side effects, and real doctors would be telling us all about them.
jesusisjustalrightwithme
Thursday, September 27, 2007 12:04:14 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
jesusisjustalrightwithme... most drugs that are illegal today were legally prescribed by doctors at one point in time.
Thursday, September 27, 2007 5:54:36 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
Actually, in my preferred category, psychedelics, there have been a large number developed recently which allow one to tailor the trip as to intensity, duration and direction. They are all automatically illegal. I even know of one molecule for which no synthesis has been developed, but it is already illegal based on the expectation that it will be psychoactive.
Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:34:03 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
I think the war on drugs is bull. But I think supporting addicts through tax-funded programs is also bull.

But the biggest of them all?

My brother will live with a chronic, painful back injury because some teenagers sideswiped him
at a rural highway intersection. They just finished smoking a bowl. They get to go on with their happy little lives and not have problems with finding a job that will support them even though standing OR sitting for a prolonged period of time are major issues.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:11:06 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
Nick,
I know.

Phel,
Reckless driving that causes injury should be a crime regardless of the cause.
jesusisjustalrightwithme
Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:19:44 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
J - the chances of it happening would be far less if they weren't smoking one. You know that.
Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:24:33 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
The point being, that DUI should get someone in jail whether they were drinking or smoking something. Under the influence is under the influence, whether drugs are illegal or not.
Thursday, September 27, 2007 10:22:37 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
I'm with Phel on this one. In the mid-90's I worked in a group home for teens that were either coming out of corrections or had one foot in and the other on a banana peel. Part of my job was to point out the costs of their habits, or choices if you prefer.

Even if you take out the legal costs, based on your scenario, the cost of their choice quickly goes into the tens of thousands of dollars, base on lost income, health issues, etc. And that is before true addiction starts. Some laws are necessary for a society to function. But the choices of how that society deals with those problems is really the issue.
capper
Friday, September 28, 2007 8:22:54 AM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
Capper... that assumes that the War on Drugs prevents people from doing drugs. But the statistics have shown that overall drug usage hasn't really decreased. So the problem still exists, and on top of it, we have all new problems:

- Increased gang activity and crime associated with it trying to control the black market.
- Increased criminal population of people who's only crime is doing drugs along with the associated financial and society cost.
- More dangerous drugs due to lack of government oversight and regulation into it's production.
- Police corruption and increase in militarization of the police.
- Loss of basic civil liberties that are now taken for granted in an effort to fight the War on Drugs.

Shall I keep listing things?
Friday, September 28, 2007 2:11:50 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
I think it comes down to this: Liberals like Fred, Phel and Capper just want to control other people. They think government knows how to run our lives better than we do. It doesn't matter to them that the results of the drug war are negative. Their liberal cognitive disonence won't let them see that.
jesusisjustalrightwithme
Saturday, September 29, 2007 12:03:32 AM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
Heh, jujawm, just called Fred and Phel liberals. That is sweet irony.

Anyway, personally, if you want to fry your brain cells, have at it. But do it in a locked room so that you don't affect me or my family while in your altered state. And don't expect for us to pay for your care when you're a drooling vegetable.


I know one guy from high school that fried his head, now taxpayers are paying for the rest of his life while he drools on himself in a nursing home. DUI's can affect anyone. Come up with a way that your usage won't affect or harm anyone else, and we can talk. If you just want to use, cause you can't deal with reality in any other way, and don't give a damn about the consequences...well, that is why they have to have the punitive measures you gripe about.
capper
Saturday, September 29, 2007 1:49:20 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
"That is sweet irony."

In a sense it was ironic because I know that Fred et. al. are actually crazy right-wingers. But crazy right-winger does not equal conservative. At least not in the small-government sense. They want a big controlling government and said as much on this thread. Isn't big government part of liberal politics?

"Anyway, personally, if you want to fry your brain cells, have at it. But do it in a locked room so that you don't affect me or my family while in your altered state."

Ya see, this is the problem. The war on drugs makes it illegal for people to do drugs in a locked room. And lots of drugs that don't fry your brain are illegal.

"Come up with a way that your usage won't affect or harm anyone else, and we can talk."

How about penalizing the action rather than one particular factor that may have contributed to the action? You know, like make it illegal to drive your car over the middle line and into another car? Actually I think that already is illegal.
jesusisjustalrightwithme
Comments are closed.


© Copyright 2012 Nick Schweitzer
Powered By newtelligence dasBlog 1.9.7067.0
Theme Based on Design By maystar