Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > 5% of the world, 25% of the inmates - why does the US lock so many people up?

5% of the world, 25% of the inmates - why does the US lock so many people up?
Thread Tools
peeb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2008, 11:39 AM
 
     
Dakar the Fourth
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the hearts and minds of MacNNers
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2008, 11:42 AM
 
I do believe drug laws are part of it -- not that I believe all drug laws are bad.
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2008, 11:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth View Post
I do believe drug laws are part of it -- not that I believe all drug laws are bad.
Absolutely "Americans are locked up for crimes — from writing bad checks to using drugs — that would rarely produce prison sentences in other countries. And in particular they are kept incarcerated far longer than prisoners in other nations."

Locking people up for things that other countries don't, and doing it for longer are the proximal causes, but what about the root causes - why do they do it?
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2008, 12:05 PM
 
It might be revealing to look at who gets locked up.
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2008, 12:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
It might be revealing to look at who gets locked up.
There's another thread about Nixon and Bush - I think that discussion might be better there.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2008, 12:39 PM
 
Since prohibition and crummy sentencing guidelines have been mentioned, the third member of this triumvirate of suckage would be prosecutors.

A vital job that requires enormous responsibility to do properly, yet here is designed to attract the lowest forms of life... not just lawyers, but lawyers who want to be politicians.
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2008, 12:43 PM
 
Speaking of politicians, mandatory minimum sentence laws always seem a popular way to pander, and surely cause a lot of this, but I still don't understand why this is so popular. Some states now spend more on prisons than higher education.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2008, 01:08 PM
 
It's the "I'm not a criminal, so this must be good" mentality.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2008, 01:17 PM
 
^^ Politicians have a leg up on us normal folk in terms of harnessing the power of stupid.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2008, 02:28 PM
 
The mentality that says it should be illegal for a person to do things that might f*ck up their own lives combined with people trying to make a name for themselves has caused a lot of problems for us in this country.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2008, 02:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
Some states now spend more on prisons than higher education.
And what good has it done?
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2008, 02:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
And what good has it done?
To spend more money on prisons than higher education? Well, the main good seems to be to the prison / industrial complex. Business is booming.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2008, 03:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
Some states now spend more on prisons than higher education.
And what good has it done?

I've heard prisons likened to "universities of crime".
     
Powerbook
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: München, Deutschland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2008, 03:20 PM
 
Maybe U.S. law and law system advocates should think about the shocking numbers of INNOCENT prisoners in U.S. prisons? Like some ~100 DEATH ROW INNOCENTS alone that have been freed due to the efforts of legal teams and DNA evidence etc. over the years?
I wouldn't like to be a Negro and coincidentally be in the vicinity of a crime. I'd have to be thankful not to be lynched on sight.

I mean, two parties doing a show for a bunch of "uneducated" jury Joe/Jane Sixpacks and the better show wins?!? -> The U.S. law systems sucks incredibly imho.


Regards
PB.
Aut Caesar aut nihil.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2008, 03:22 PM
 
I think a pretty good case can be made that the rise in incarceration rates, which started in the 1980s and accelerated through the 1990s, accounts for much of the drop in crime that has occurred since the early 1990s.

incarceration rate:


violent crime rate:


And I don't think the prison population is due to drug offenders. Most are in for violent crimes.


Figures from here.
     
chris v
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Sar Chasm
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2008, 03:53 PM
 
Why does America have so many violent criminals?

When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift.
     
Dakar the Fourth
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the hearts and minds of MacNNers
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2008, 03:58 PM
 
Because we're a melting pot?
     
LegendaryPinkOx
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: petting the refrigerator.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2008, 04:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth View Post
Because we're a melting pot?
Thems fightin words!

But yeah, ethnic diversity in conjunction with poor education, in densely populated urban areas may be a big factor.
are you lightfooted?
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2008, 06:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
I think a pretty good case can be made that the rise in incarceration rates, which started in the 1980s and accelerated through the 1990s, accounts for much of the drop in crime that has occurred since the early 1990s.
Except that if you break those numbers out by state, there is little or no correlation between the states that incarcerate the most and the rates of crime dropping.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2008, 08:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
Except that if you break those numbers out by state, there is little or no correlation between the states that incarcerate the most and the rates of crime dropping.
Well it's not my thing, but my understanding is that most criminologists believe that the high incarceration rate has played a significant role in the drop in crime. That doesn't mean it's the right thing to do - I mean, we could lock up every male from age 17 to 30, and I'm sure crime would plummet, but that wouldn't make it right.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2008, 09:35 PM
 
Prosecutors (DAs) shouldn't be elected-that skews EVERYTHING they do. They should have complete cooperation from every part of the law enforcement system too-don't hold your breath.

But they only prosecute stuff that's against laws someone passes. Who does that? Congress and state legislatures. If those windbags didn't pass so many stupid laws, and instead cleaned out crappy existing laws and streamlined the ones that were left into a usable and understandable code of allowable versus prohibited conduct, everyone would be a lot better off.

We also need to consider what happens in prison. Often career criminals get their apprenticeship and journeyman training while incarcerated for lesser crimes. PRISON SHOULD BE PUNISHMENT. Not free time with a day room with cable TV and structured exercise and gym time. It should require work, it should require education and training, and it should be so unpleasant that nobody would ever risk going back. It ain't that way ANYWHERE in the U. S. today. So we reimprison people because they don't get the idea that they're supposed to be doing something other than being that gangbanger or breakin specialist they were before they went to prison in the first place. I read somewhere that more and more violent offenders are being put away for stupid crimes, rather than the more detailed "it takes some thought and planning" crimes. Maybe a lot of them are going to prison because they're stupid.

And that something is not unlawful in other countries doesn't mean that our laws are not valid and reasonable. It just means that other countries don't see things the same way that we do. Many countries have rather harsh laws about immigration-we have civil regulations regarding immigration. Many countries have harsh laws against private ownership of firearms-our Constitution (the basic law of the land) calls that a fundamental right. So something not being illegal in France really doesn't sway me. Sorry.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Atomic Rooster
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2008, 11:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth View Post
Because we're a melting pot?
Sounds like Charlton Heston who blamed high gun crime mostly on minorities.
     
Dakar the Fourth
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the hearts and minds of MacNNers
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2008, 12:04 AM
 
You're reading into my statement, my dear.
     
Atomic Rooster
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2008, 03:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth View Post
You're reading into my statement, my dear.
How do I get out?
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2008, 05:13 AM
 
I see Wesley Snipes has just been banged up for three years for committing the cardinal sin.

Wouldn't it have been better to make him pay his protection racket subscriptions and then leave him out? If he's in the clink, he can't earn any money, which means he can't pay his protection rackets subs for three years...
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2008, 08:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
I see Wesley Snipes has just been banged up for three years for committing the cardinal sin.

Wouldn't it have been better to make him pay his protection racket subscriptions and then leave him out? If he's in the clink, he can't earn any money, which means he can't pay his protection rackets subs for three years...
Logic is the enemy (and enema) of bureaucracy. Tax courts actively use this "Catch 22" to push people who run afoul of them farther down into the mire. Lovely things, these tax courts. Wesley got hammered because he's famous-and that's something the tax courts here do with regularity. They also go after the crippled old widows because they don't want to look soft. They don't have attorneys, they have lawyers-the kind the attorneys consider to be bottom dwellers. Not that I have any real opinions on this...

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Dakar the Fourth
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the hearts and minds of MacNNers
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2008, 08:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster View Post
How do I get out?
Same way you got in.
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2008, 12:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Prosecutors (DAs) shouldn't be elected-that skews EVERYTHING they do.
Yes.
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
But they only prosecute stuff that's against laws someone passes. Who does that? Congress and state legislatures. If those windbags didn't pass so many stupid laws, and instead cleaned out crappy existing laws and streamlined the ones that were left into a usable and understandable code of allowable versus prohibited conduct, everyone would be a lot better off.
Yes, but those legislatures could be voted out of office - society as a whole has to take some responsibility for not putting the bums out of a job.

Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
PRISON SHOULD BE PUNISHMENT. Not free time with a day room with cable TV...
I don't think you are familiar with federal prison in the US. Also, I don't think that the primary purpose of prison should be punishment. It should be to reduce crime. We know that prison is notoriously bad at doing that, and that there are many cheaper, more effective options.
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
And that something is not unlawful in other countries doesn't mean that our laws are not valid and reasonable. It just means that other countries don't see things the same way that we do. Many countries have rather harsh laws about immigration-we have civil regulations regarding immigration. Many countries have harsh laws against private ownership of firearms-our Constitution (the basic law of the land) calls that a fundamental right. So something not being illegal in France really doesn't sway me. Sorry.
OK, I think there are a couple of important differences here. Lets look at Frances gun laws. Yes, compared to the US, France has restrictive gun laws, but then, the French seem to agree with this - there are very few people imprisoned in France for breaking gun laws. Compare this to US drug laws, and you see a whole lot less consent for those laws. A lot of people break them. That seems like an important difference to me - when you criminalize something that causes no direct harm, and a whole lot of people want to do, that seems like a problem.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2008, 01:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
I see Wesley Snipes has just been banged up for three years for committing the cardinal sin.

Wouldn't it have been better to make him pay his protection racket subscriptions and then leave him out? If he's in the clink, he can't earn any money, which means he can't pay his protection rackets subs for three years...

Something seemed extra whacky about this.

He got convicted on misdemeanors. I don't think you should go to prison on a misdemeanor. Even if you have a bunch of them.

He supposedly withheld 3 million dollars in taxes.

How is stealing 3 million dollars a misdemeanor?


I get that this is BS, and that bureaucracies are BS, but what's the internal logic they're using?
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2008, 05:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
I don't think you are familiar with federal prison in the US. Also, I don't think that the primary purpose of prison should be punishment. It should be to reduce crime. We know that prison is notoriously bad at doing that, and that there are many cheaper, more effective options.
I've done security system work at a medium security facility in Bastrop, Texas. It looked more like a closed (seriously closed) campus than some place that made just existing there unpleasant. Maybe I'm seeing something cultural rather than structural, but the effect should be the same: it should be so bad to be there that NOBODY wants to go back, and they'll change everything about their lives to keep from going back. That is punishment to me, and it would have the effect of reducing crime.
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
OK, I think there are a couple of important differences here. Lets look at Frances gun laws. Yes, compared to the US, France has restrictive gun laws, but then, the French seem to agree with this - there are very few people imprisoned in France for breaking gun laws. Compare this to US drug laws, and you see a whole lot less consent for those laws. A lot of people break them. That seems like an important difference to me - when you criminalize something that causes no direct harm, and a whole lot of people want to do, that seems like a problem.
Those drug laws were originally instituted because it was felt that participation in drug use and distribution was damaging. DISTRIBUTION OF MOST ILLEGAL DRUGS IS DEFINITELY HARMFUL both to those who use the drugs (because of the way street drugs are cut, and because of how many dealers "maintain" their "clients") and society as a whole (the whole business of intentionally recruiting new addicts is something that the tobacco industry has been resolutely lambasted for, right?-but are heroin dealers any less culpable just because they don't wear suits?).

On the other hand, once it became evident that the illegal use of certain drugs (JUST that use) only harmed the user, it was way too late to change the laws. Society has been irrevocably changed, and the people making huge amounts of money by chemically enslaving people would find some other (illegal) way to take advantage and harm society. They have demonstrated that they are as antisocial (pathologically speaking) as a person can be-what's there to change them?

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2008, 08:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Something seemed extra whacky about this.

He got convicted on misdemeanors. I don't think you should go to prison on a misdemeanor. Even if you have a bunch of them.

He supposedly withheld 3 million dollars in taxes.

How is stealing 3 million dollars a misdemeanor?


I get that this is BS, and that bureaucracies are BS, but what's the internal logic they're using?
The logic is one of threat:

Pay up, agree that you owe and negotiate on the amount owed, and you don't have to go to prison.

Maintain that you don't owe, don't negotiate, and we'll put you in prison for misdemeanors. Because we can. We're the Government.

This was precisely the same behavior we saw from another commission within the government when they went after Martha Stewart. Had she not maintained her innocence, and admitted to something earlier on, she could have completely avoided imprisonment.

What it comes down to is bullying by a government that has come to believe that your money belongs to them, and they get to decide how much of it belongs to them. When they can take it (Snipes) or tell you what you can and can't do with it (Stewart) and the alternative is you going to jail -- it's not really yours, is it?

Specifically what got Snipes in trouble was that he used arguments that tax protesters have used and failed with repeatedly. So the courts saw an easy way to add another failure to the list, and a high profile one at that. They do this in hopes that it will discourage tax protestors in the future, and discourage tax protestors that do pop up from using this argument again.
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2008, 09:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
it should be so bad to be there that NOBODY wants to go back, and they'll change everything about their lives to keep from going back.
Sounds like it would also be unconstitutional.
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Those drug laws
Which ones are we talking about here?
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
were originally instituted because it was felt that participation in drug use and distribution was damaging. DISTRIBUTION OF MOST ILLEGAL DRUGS IS DEFINITELY HARMFUL both to those who use the drugs (because of the way street drugs are cut, and because of how many dealers "maintain" their "clients") and society as a whole (the whole business of intentionally recruiting new addicts is something that the tobacco industry has been resolutely lambasted for, right?-but are heroin dealers any less culpable just because they don't wear suits?).
Pretty much, yes. Tobacco and alcohol companies sell a product that is more damaging than some illegal drugs. The idea that something should be prohibited because it might cause damage seems deeply communist to me. What happened to individual liberty? There are many things that are potentially harmful, but you can't bubble wrap everyone to protect them from themselves.
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
On the other hand, once it became evident that the illegal use of certain drugs (JUST that use) only harmed the user, it was way too late to change the laws. Society has been irrevocably changed, and the people making huge amounts of money by chemically enslaving people would find some other (illegal) way to take advantage and harm society. They have demonstrated that they are as antisocial (pathologically speaking) as a person can be-what's there to change them?
Actually, it seems that a group of deeply antisocial (pathologically speaking) people in the prison industry has found a way to criminalise huge numbers of people who are not a threat to anyone for their profits.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2008, 09:31 PM
 
What no one has answered is why there was a constitutional amendment needed to prohibit alcohol, but no such prohibition amendment is necessary for the federal drug prohibition laws.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2008, 09:39 PM
 
I'm not talking about the "work house" type environment of the mid-1800s, where inmates were forced to do useless, mindless labor to "work the devil out of them." I'm talking about not making anything comfortable or easy. Lots of work, little unsupervised time alone with others, compulsory education (deduct any "good time" for missed classes), and that sort of thing is what I'm talking about. I should also note that many GIs have far fewer amenities and live in far less comfort than most prisoners-and the GIs are risking their lives for us. But prison should NOT be a place where one learns a criminal trade. Instead it should be a place where a person works his tail off to get useful, legal skills so he'll never be tempted to commit a crime again-it should be MUCH harder to live in prison than to get and hold an honest job.

I certainly don't want to be bubble wrapped myself. But since there is no control over what street drugs are cut with, how potent they are, that they actually are what they are supposed to be, and so on, makes this a real social issue. Even if it were legal to sell heroin on the street, it would be a public health nightmare unless there were enormously stringent controls on the quality and potency of the stuff. There ARE stringent controls on tobacco (what can go in along with the tobacco), and alcohol (strict regulations on how strong it is, what can and can't be added, what it may be made with -as in absinthe isn't allowed- etc.). This is not a matter of "it could hurt you" as much as "you don't know how it could hurt you." The Pure Food and Drug Act, enacted after the publication of "The Jungle," Upton Sinclaire's 1906 indictment of the robber barons of meat packing, was there more to make it clear that "adulterated" products were not acceptable-whether the adulteration was floor sweepings or workers' fingers. This "levels the playing field" and makes the consumer capable of making informed decisions instead of being at the mercy of the vendor (sound familiar? like street drug sellers?).

When a large part of the violence committed in my city (and many others) is directly related to who controls the "turf" for selling anything from weed to heroin, I really have a hard time seeing this as a bunch of people who "are not a threat to anyone".

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2008, 09:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
What no one has answered is why there was a constitutional amendment needed to prohibit alcohol, but no such prohibition amendment is necessary for the federal drug prohibition laws.
There is not a blanket prohibition on drugs. They are controlled based on what is supposed to be their potential for good and harm. That's what the FDA was set up for. Only a few drugs are truly outlawed, and then only because the people appointed to make these decisions have stated that there is no medical use for them (whether that is actually the case or a political statement is a different issue).

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2008, 12:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
There is not a blanket prohibition on drugs. They are controlled based on what is supposed to be their potential for good and harm. That's what the FDA was set up for. Only a few drugs are truly outlawed, and then only because the people appointed to make these decisions have stated that there is no medical use for them (whether that is actually the case or a political statement is a different issue).
It's funny how you think it's ok to control drugs on the basis of a federal agency's opinion of good and harm, but if the same rationale was made for cars, guns or air conditioners you would be up in arms.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2008, 07:38 AM
 
Did I say I thought it was OK? I thought I'd hedged pretty well on that. I STRONGLY feel that much of the "dangerous drug" policy in the U.S. is based on '50s rules and laws that were themselves based on '30s concepts of good and bad rather than science or medicine. I'm saying that there is a technical and functional difference between Prohibition and U.S. drug policy.

I actually AM "up in arms" about the fact that certain drugs are considered of no medicinal value when the science shows that they are instead VERY useful. Heroin (produced in laboratory conditions, of course) is shown to be very effective in pain relief and has a long track record of utility in hospice situations. It also has a "smoother" dropoff than drugs like Methadone and can be useful in the treatment of babies born addicted much more safely than Methadone. (Don't get me started about babies born addicted!) But rather than railing about how stupid this is, I'm badgering my elected officials to force the FDA to look at the science. This isn't a matter of "it isn't illegal in country X", but rather "hard science shows that our regulations on this drug are poo." It would be more effective to produce medicinal-quality heroin and use it under the same controlled conditions that morphine is used, and to use other laws about misuse of prescription medications to prosecute street pushers.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2008, 09:26 AM
 
Glenn,

You're never going to have a lot of success countering the War on Some Drugs (which I still maintain is unconstitutional - if prohibition of alcohol required two amendments, prohibition of other substances also requires an amendment) on a scientific basis.

If you can't get medical marijuana through, when doctors and whole states have voted in support of it, and the Federal Government decides it knows better in violation of the 9th and 10th Amendments, you're never going to get anyone to take you seriously on medicinal heroin.

I take it that you didn't find my comment on Snipes' sentence interesting?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2008, 02:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
Specifically what got Snipes in trouble was that he used arguments that tax protesters have used and failed with repeatedly. So the courts saw an easy way to add another failure to the list, and a high profile one at that. They do this in hopes that it will discourage tax protestors in the future, and discourage tax protestors that do pop up from using this argument again.

Okay, this makes sense.

The thing is that I've heard about Snipes' tax issues for years, and no one ever mentioned it was because he's one of those tax resister types. I imagined a detail like that would have been mentioned. Same situation with the SO.

Of course, last night on Nancy Grace it's all they talk about.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2008, 02:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
little unsupervised time alone with others

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!

Number one issue with prisons.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2008, 02:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Even if it were legal to sell heroin on the street, it would be a public health nightmare unless there were enormously stringent controls on the quality and potency of the stuff.

Something tells me that if heroin were legal, (cough, tax income) that we wouldn't (cough, tax income) have to jump through any hoops (tax income, cough, cough) to get the governnment (cough, tax income, cough) to regulate it (tax income, cough) for us.

Have I mentioned the governement may be interested in taxing said substances?
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2008, 04:55 PM
 
The impediments to regulating the sale of quality heroin are certainly no greater than that of alcohol. Once you get it out of the hands of criminal gangs and into the hands of criminal corporations a little bit of market forces should drive up the quality too.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2008, 05:01 PM
 
Cough.
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2008, 05:23 PM
 
Having trouble with your throat there, Subego?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2008, 05:52 PM
 
Was that out loud?
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2008, 10:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
why does the US lock so many people up?
well some other nations just chop your hand off. or imprison you for life. which scares the **** out of people...and others just settle for higher crime rates. we should make punishment worse and we'd have less criminals. why is it that criminals always come out of prison looking like professional body builders? surely not because they just work out, sleep 14 hours a day and watch cable the rest. These prisoners are living the modern American dream.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2008, 10:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Something tells me that if heroin were legal, (cough, tax income) that we wouldn't (cough, tax income) have to jump through any hoops (tax income, cough, cough) to get the governnment (cough, tax income, cough) to regulate it (tax income, cough) for us.

Have I mentioned the governement may be interested in taxing said substances?
Sure they would be. If there were a way to make sure that those substances were without under-the-counter competition, that would be a very valid thing. But if we can't stop it now, how would we stop it then? As it is, the very fact that people are willing to face horrendously long prison sentences in order to import and produce these drugs, and other people are willing to face similar sentences to use them validates the common conception that the drugs are themselves dangerous. I can't argue that in the broad scheme of things that conception is wrong.

Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
I take it that you didn't find my comment on Snipes' sentence interesting?
Interesting, but not a driving force when I stepped into this discussion. Wesley got off on the wrong foot by excusing his failure to file with the discredited mumbo-jumbo that the "income tax is not legal" gurus spout, which is why he got included in their trial. But while the IRS could have settled with him and levied a fine, they refuse to look like they're "soft" on anyone, so they push it to the limit. I'll bet there's a quick appeal and Mr. Snipes will have a press conference wherein he states that he was mislead and this experience has shown him that very clearly (and there will be a stiff fine involved) and all will be done. The crime is a misdemeanor. The money involved is taxes, interest and penalties.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2008, 10:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
Once you get it out of the hands of criminal gangs and into the hands of criminal corporations a little bit of market forces should drive up the quality too.
That would be the trick-and it's obvious that the monetary driving force in this particular trade is NOT going to allow that to happen. It's way too lucrative for the criminals to let it happen. They LIKE it to be dangerous and thus expensive, and they LIKE having a chemically enslaved market to milk. And they do NOT care who gets hurt along the way, or they would not be in that business in the first place.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2008, 01:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
But if we can't stop it now, how would we stop it then? As it is, the very fact that people are willing to face horrendously long prison sentences in order to import and produce these drugs, and other people are willing to face similar sentences to use them validates the common conception that the drugs are themselves dangerous. I can't argue that in the broad scheme of things that conception is wrong.

You could have said the same exact thing about alcohol during prohibition.
( Last edited by subego; Apr 27, 2008 at 01:21 AM. )
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2008, 02:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Sure they would be. If there were a way to make sure that those substances were without under-the-counter competition, that would be a very valid thing. But if we can't stop it now, how would we stop it then?
It doesn't matter if they have illegal competition. In reality, it would be rather hard to compete with the legal avenues because the illegal sellers would have both more trouble selling (since they'd need to be discreet) and most likely higher costs (since it wouldn't be worth the trouble if they were selling cheaply).

We can see from already legal addictive substances like tobacco and alcohol that this is not a very big problem in practice. People could sell these things illegally if they wanted to, but it's simply more practical to sell them legally, so that's what people do. Bootlegging is not a very prosperous business anymore.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:03 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,