The war on drugs is even more unfair than you thought

[forummm]

A long read. Essentially, the field tests for illegal drugs that police officers have are incredibly inaccurate. The tests give false positives for legal medications, household cleaners, and other legal substances. Initial positive results with these poor tests are frequently not ever verified with more accurate equipment. A lot of innocent people are arrested and convicted. Because of the weight of the system against them, a lot of innocent people even plead guilty. When evidence backlogs get tested after convictions (which is entirely optional, so it's only done by select jurisdictions), many of the people are proven to be innocent. And of course there's racial bias in the arrests as well.

The main story in the article is of a woman who was arrested and plead guilty to crack cocaine possession and had her life ruined as a result. She lost her job, house, all personal belongings, and couldn't get another job. Fortunately she was arrested in one of the few jurisdictions that retests drug evidence after convicion. The "crack cocaine" turned out to be OTC aspirin.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/magazine/how-a-2-roadside-drug-test-sends-innocent-people-to-jail.html

People plead guilty when they’re innocent because they see no alternative. People who have just been arrested usually don’t know their options, or even that they have an option.

The woman in the article also plead guilty years earlier to a DUI--after blowing a 0.00. Why was she even charged? The criminal "justice" system is so messed up.

9 out of 10 jurisdictions in a nationwide survey accept guilty pleas based on field tests alone.

Data from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement lab system show that 21 percent of evidence that the police listed as methamphetamine after identifying it was not methamphetamine

In one notable Florida episode, Hillsborough County sheriff’s deputies produced 15 false positives for methamphetamine in the first seven months of 2014. When we examined the department’s records, they showed that officers, faced with somewhat ambiguous directions on the pouches, had simply misunderstood which colors indicated a positive result.

Yet another reason the war on drugs is terrible.

[dougules]

Aside from the war on drugs, the other problem is the overworked understaffed public defenders.  Are these people really getting "Assistance of Counsel"?

[forummm]

Aside from the war on drugs, the other problem is the overworked understaffed public defenders.  Are these people really getting "Assistance of Counsel"?

True. And often the defendants must pay for public defenders--who are supposed to be provided for free because the person can't pay.

[dougules]

Aside from the war on drugs, the other problem is the overworked understaffed public defenders.  Are these people really getting "Assistance of Counsel"?

True. And often the defendants must pay for public defenders--who are supposed to be provided for free because the person can't pay.

Then thrown into jail because they can't pay.  But then they add those cost into their debt, and you can see the snowball. 

[forummm]

Yeah. We've started debtors prisons again. I thought those were unconstitutional here (and SCOTUS ruled such for 200+ years).


http://www.npr.org/2014/05/21/313118629/supreme-court-ruling-not-enough-to-prevent-debtors-prisons

[forummm]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/07/15/485835272/the-driving-life-and-death-of-philando-castile

An NPR analysis of those records shows that the 32-year-old cafeteria worker who was shot and killed by a police officer during a traffic stop in a St. Paul, Minn., suburb, was stopped by police 46 times and racked up more than $6,000 in fines. Another curious statistic: Of all of the stops, only six of them were things a police officer would notice from outside a car — things like speeding or having a busted muffler.

[dougules]

Yeah. We've started debtors prisons again. I thought those were unconstitutional here (and SCOTUS ruled such for 200+ years).


http://www.npr.org/2014/05/21/313118629/supreme-court-ruling-not-enough-to-prevent-debtors-prisons

Fines and court fees are totally different from debt. 

[forummm]

Yeah. We've started debtors prisons again. I thought those were unconstitutional here (and SCOTUS ruled such for 200+ years).


http://www.npr.org/2014/05/21/313118629/supreme-court-ruling-not-enough-to-prevent-debtors-prisons

Fines and court fees are totally different from debt. 

How so? If you don't pay them, you owe money. When you owe money, that's called debt.

[dougules]

Yeah. We've started debtors prisons again. I thought those were unconstitutional here (and SCOTUS ruled such for 200+ years).


http://www.npr.org/2014/05/21/313118629/supreme-court-ruling-not-enough-to-prevent-debtors-prisons

Fines and court fees are totally different from debt. 

How so? If you don't pay them, you owe money. When you owe money, that's called debt.

sorry, my sarcasm is a little dry. 

[arebelspy]

The prison system we've built is one of the worst parts about modern day America, and that's saying a lot.

The racial bias in our justice system is terrible. The war on drugs is horrible.

Pleading out to avoid jail time being the rational thing to do for innocent people, simply because it'll take forever for them to get to trial is a sham.

What is it, something like 5% of the world's population, 25% of its prison inmates?  Ugh.

Thanks for the links, keep them coming (when relevant).

[dougules]

It's always boggled my mind that we have more people in prison than China, a repressive authoritarian regime with 4 times our population. 

On top of that, prisons are expensive.  If you work out the math in this article, it's something like $200/year for every man, woman, and child in the US.  And then that's not even considering the lost tax revenue from taking those prisoners out of the workforce.  Wouldn't you like to have an extra $200/year for everybody in your family, plus more people to split expenses?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-cost-of-a-nation-of-incarceration/

We had prohibition on alcohol, and that didn't go well.  People don't seem to see that history is repeating itself with the war on drugs.  I'm not saying drugs (including alcohol and tobacco!) are a good thing, but the current cure is much worse than the disease. 

[libertarian4321]

We already knew the insane "War on Drugs" was an expensive, racist, failure that caused more problems than it "fixed."

This is just another reason to end the failed "War on Drugs" and return freedom of choice to (allegedly) free adult citizens.

Unfortunately, almost every politician in both major parties is blind to, or too corrupt to care about, the fact that the "War on Drugs" is far more detrimental to America than the effects of drugs ever will be.

Though I do applaud the Libertarian Party, and that small minority of Dems and Reps, who have called for an end to the misguided "War on Drugs."

[FrugalShrew]

This is a haunting profile of a young man who was incarcerated for three years in New York, just waiting for trial. He spent much of that time in solitary confinement.

The charges were eventually dismissed, but unfortunately Browder never recovered from the experience and ultimately ended up committing suicide.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/06/before-the-law

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/kalief-browder-1993-2015

[dougules]

We already knew the insane "War on Drugs" was an expensive, racist, failure that caused more problems than it "fixed."

This is just another reason to end the failed "War on Drugs" and return freedom of choice to (allegedly) free adult citizens.

Unfortunately, almost every politician in both major parties is blind to, or too corrupt to care about, the fact that the "War on Drugs" is far more detrimental to America than the effects of drugs ever will be.

Though I do applaud the Libertarian Party, and that small minority of Dems and Reps, who have called for an end to the misguided "War on Drugs."

Politicians that do support ending the war on drugs just end up looking like they're pro-cocaine.  People can't quite wrap their head around the idea of legalizing something without actually being for it. 

This a haunting profile of a young man who was incarcerated for three years in New York, just waiting for trial.

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial"  The 6th Amendment is crying right now. 

[deadlymonkey]

One of the few libertarian positions that I think is great is the legalization of prostitution and drugs.  Regulate and tax and you can improve the safety of all involved and cut out the criminal element.  Taxes could be earmarked for treatment programs and education making it a win-win.  Let adults be adults.   We just need to stop with the puritan social attitudes.

[dougules]

One of the few libertarian positions that I think is great is the legalization of prostitution and drugs.  Regulate and tax and you can improve the safety of all involved and cut out the criminal element.  Taxes could be earmarked for treatment programs and education making it a win-win.  Let adults be adults.   We just need to stop with the puritan social attitudes.

Another thing is that we have a better understanding now that addiction is a medical problem.  We're throwing people into prison, and most of them would be way better served by treatment.  And the $30k/year prison cost savings could go a long way towards helping people get their lives back on track and making them actual tax payers.  I know libertarians have a tough time with this one, but would you rather pay more to throw somebody away or pay a little less to get somebody back to being a good member of society?

[Yaeger]

I know libertarians have a tough time with this one, but would you rather pay more to throw somebody away or pay a little less to get somebody back to being a good member of society?

I'm a libertarian, and would rather pay neither. Giving someone the freedom to use drugs to their heart's content also places the social responsibility upon the users, their families, and their communities for responsible use. Not the federal or (to a lesser extent) state taxpayer. Shielding communities from destructive habits is more damaging than allowing them to see the effects of these destructive behaviors and encouraging better moral behavior. In addition, it gives the option for communities/states the flexibility to dynamically shift funding and taxing priorities to adapt to the wishes of the community rather than meet federal mandates and requirements.

I find it about as ridiculous as sin taxes on products like tobacco to discourage smoking. Tobacco doesn't give you cancer, a cigarette doesn't promote cancer, your decision to smoke tobacco leads towards potentially contracting cancer and as long as that information isn't being suppressed to the user by the company, or the industry, you shouldn't have 'discouragement' burdens (hefty federal, state, and local taxes) levied to reduce use.

[Metric Mouse]

One of the few libertarian positions that I think is great is the legalization of prostitution and drugs.  Regulate and tax and you can improve the safety of all involved and cut out the criminal element.  Taxes could be earmarked for treatment programs and education making it a win-win.  Let adults be adults.   We just need to stop with the puritan social attitudes.

Prostitution is a trickier one. Legalized sex trade can be used as a cover for human trafficking. The evidence isn't super clear cut, considering the legal status of the trade, but in a lot of places it can wind up worse as a 'legal' trade than a heavily policed illegal one.

Drugs do not have the same issues.

[jrhampt]

One of the few libertarian positions that I think is great is the legalization of prostitution and drugs.  Regulate and tax and you can improve the safety of all involved and cut out the criminal element.  Taxes could be earmarked for treatment programs and education making it a win-win.  Let adults be adults.   We just need to stop with the puritan social attitudes.

Prostitution is a trickier one. Legalized sex trade can be used as a cover for human trafficking. The evidence isn't super clear cut, considering the legal status of the trade, but in a lot of places it can wind up worse as a 'legal' trade than a heavily policed illegal one.

Drugs do not have the same issues.

Agreed.  I (and many people who work with organizations to stop human trafficking) lean more towards the approach of decriminalizing the seller side while criminalizing the buyer side.

[forummm]

This is a haunting profile of a young man who was incarcerated for three years in New York, just waiting for trial. He spent much of that time in solitary confinement.

The charges were eventually dismissed, but unfortunately Browder never recovered from the experience and ultimately ended up committing suicide.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/06/before-the-law

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/kalief-browder-1993-2015

Yes, it's crazy how many people that we lock up who are still legally innocent just because they are poor.

Interesting interview about jails (where poor people are often held without any finding of guilt):

http://www.npr.org/2016/05/11/477547366/is-america-engaged-in-a-vicious-cycle-of-jailing-the-poor

[Yaeger]

Yes, it's crazy how many people that we lock up who are still legally innocent just because they are poor.

Interesting interview about jails (where poor people are often held without any finding of guilt):

http://www.npr.org/2016/05/11/477547366/is-america-engaged-in-a-vicious-cycle-of-jailing-the-poor

Listen, I agree with you that the war on drugs was a bad idea from the start. I think just about every "War on X" policy is doomed to failure if a method of tailoring the program to observable results isn't in place. Our system jails innocent people (perceived danger to society or property, flight risk, drunk tank, etc) and still jives with the idea that you're assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. Her statement of "Most of those jailed, she says, are being held for low-level offenses, such as drug misdemeanors, traffic offenses or nonviolent property crimes" makes sense for short-term jailing. If someone is vandalizing a building, you just don't pull up, write him/her a ticket and then leave them for the night. A DUI is a traffic offense and we're not going to let them drive home.

However, to misrepresent the article and say that we're locking up innocent people ***just because they're poor*** demonstrates a gross misunderstanding or a deliberate exaggeration. It also really goes into misunderstanding what a Bond/Bail is. It's not a get-out-of-jail-free card for the rich, it's insurance and collateral for the express purpose of ensuring you attend your required court appearances. It cannot be used to punish, and it cannot be used to raise money for the government. From someone that's used this process before it's relatively easy to borrow and post bond with a reasonable expectation of getting that money back.

More troubling are the long jail periods for the poor brought around by insufficient legal resources to process them quickly and it circles back to reducing the number of enforceable laws/regulations, like drug offences.

[Telecaster]

^^ Except the bondsman gets to keep his fee.   I read about an  experiment in New York state conducted by the Innocence Project where they raised a bunch of money, and used it to pay bail for poor defendants.  97% the defendants with no money on the line appeared in court, which is to say bail is unnecessary 97% of time. 

This is the part about the war on drug that I can't wrap my brain around is that the whole premise is that drugs are bad for you, and therefore bad for society.  You might get addicted, use drugs at work, or otherwise screw you life somehow.  Okay, so in order to discourage you from using drugs, the state completely screws up your life.   You go to jail, lose your job, your personal relationships are damaged, etc. on and on.  What part of that makes sense on any level?   Drug polices in this country are literally crazy. 

About 15 years ago, Portugal decriminalized all drugs. The result?  Drug use went down, drug related deaths went down, HIV rates went down, etc. 

https://mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal-decriminalized-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening

[iris lily]

Im with Yaeger, I am all for legalizing all k Nds of substances we put into our bodies but I will not pay taxes that address consequences of that.

And if it frees up jail space for perps who carry out more serious crimes, that is great. One of the biggest problems in my 'hood is repeat offenders. They are hailed into jail and soon after are back,out.

In our neighbrhood we show up in a courtroom for trial and sentenancing to show the judge we care very much jow long that perp is off the streets.

[arebelspy]

Im with Yaeger, I am all for legalizing all k Nds of substances we put into our bodies but I will not pay taxes that address consequences of that.

...what?  You'll pay the taxes to lock them up (SO MANY people locked up for drug crimes), but you're not okay with shifting those funds to treat them instead of locking them up?  That seems so twisted to me, I hope I'm misinterpreting that.  =/

[dougules]

And if it frees up jail space for perps who carry out more serious crimes, that is great. One of the biggest problems in my 'hood is repeat offenders. They are hailed into jail and soon after are back,out.

Once prisoners get out, they have a tough time fitting into society, so they may prefer going back on some level.  Plus, jails and prisons are basically just criminal training camps.  Locking criminals up with a bunch of other criminals is counterproductive unless they need to be there permanently. 

It's human nature to want to punish "bad" people, but I would like to see the US move towards thinking more about preventing future crime than punishing past crime.  I'm for harsh punishments if actual data show that making an example out of somebody will actually discourage other potential criminals.  It doesn't work that way for a lot of crimes, though.  I'm all for locking some people away for life, but it should only be with the mentality of removing a threat to society instead of punishing a "bad guy."

What us Americans are doing is clearly not working.  We have the world's largest prison population, but we still have much more crime than the rest of the developed world.  We throw a lot of good money at prisons.  If it's cheaper and/or more effective to throw that money at prevention instead, let's do it.  I know this doesn't sit well with libertarians.  I get it.  I used to be a libertarian.  Just let's stop throwing money and people down a hole, especially for something that's completely not working. 

[forummm]

Yes, it's crazy how many people that we lock up who are still legally innocent just because they are poor.

Interesting interview about jails (where poor people are often held without any finding of guilt):

http://www.npr.org/2016/05/11/477547366/is-america-engaged-in-a-vicious-cycle-of-jailing-the-poor

Listen, I agree with you that the war on drugs was a bad idea from the start. I think just about every "War on X" policy is doomed to failure if a method of tailoring the program to observable results isn't in place. Our system jails innocent people (perceived danger to society or property, flight risk, drunk tank, etc) and still jives with the idea that you're assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. Her statement of "Most of those jailed, she says, are being held for low-level offenses, such as drug misdemeanors, traffic offenses or nonviolent property crimes" makes sense for short-term jailing. If someone is vandalizing a building, you just don't pull up, write him/her a ticket and then leave them for the night. A DUI is a traffic offense and we're not going to let them drive home.

However, to misrepresent the article and say that we're locking up innocent people ***just because they're poor*** demonstrates a gross misunderstanding or a deliberate exaggeration. It also really goes into misunderstanding what a Bond/Bail is. It's not a get-out-of-jail-free card for the rich, it's insurance and collateral for the express purpose of ensuring you attend your required court appearances. It cannot be used to punish, and it cannot be used to raise money for the government. From someone that's used this process before it's relatively easy to borrow and post bond with a reasonable expectation of getting that money back.

More troubling are the long jail periods for the poor brought around by insufficient legal resources to process them quickly and it circles back to reducing the number of enforceable laws/regulations, like drug offences.

I'm referring to the people who are locked up waiting for a trial. Since no verdict as been given, they are legally innocent. If someone is convicted of a crime and sentenced to jail time, then absolutely lock them up. However, if they are simply arrested and haven't had any legal adjudication but we leave them locked up for months because they don't have a couple grand or whatever to post bail, that's a bad system. There are posts here seemingly every month about some new study saying that most of the country can't get access to $500 if they needed it. Most of us here are fortunate enough to not be in that situation so it can be hard for us to understand what that feels like to people with fewer resources available to them. But if someone is spending months in jail instead of posting a couple thousand dollar bond, you have to agree it's because they can't get their hands on that kind of money.

[iris lily]

And if it frees up jail space for perps who carry out more serious crimes, that is great. One of the biggest problems in my 'hood is repeat offenders. They are hailed into jail and soon after are back,out.

Once prisoners get out, they have a tough time fitting into society, so they may prefer going back on some level.  Plus, jails and prisons are basically just criminal training camps.  Locking criminals up with a bunch of other criminals is counterproductive unless they need to be there permanently. 

It's human nature to want to punish "bad" people, but I would like to see the US move towards thinking more about preventing future crime than punishing past crime.  I'm for harsh punishments if actual data show that making an example out of somebody will actually discourage other potential criminals.  It doesn't work that way for a lot of crimes, though.  I'm all for locking some people away for life, but it should only be with the mentality of removing a threat to society instead of punishing a "bad guy."

What us Americans are doing is clearly not working.  We have the world's largest prison population, but we still have much more crime than the rest of the developed world.  We throw a lot of good money at prisons.  If it's cheaper and/or more effective to throw that money at prevention instead, let's do it.  I know this doesn't sit well with libertarians.  I get it.  I used to be a libertarian.  Just let's stop throwing money and people down a hole, especially for something that's completely not working.

Dude, get off your high horse. It's not about "punishing" perps because  I don't care about that. It's about giving some relief to the community they prey on.

The reality in my community that criminals dont spend much time in jail. When they are in jail they are not commitng crimes in my neighborhood, it is that simple.

I live in an urban core. The petty crime is constant. The last time
I had a cop in our livng  room was a few months ago when we were discussIng  package theft from my house. You probably wont even register that is a crime. Yet, I had  multiple packages stolen from my porch. As did my neighbors. When I saw who I thought  was the package thief, Law enforcement officers showed me mug shots from his last incarceration for--stealing packages!

You likely wouldnt care about petty thefts of packages, garden hoses, yard statuaries. Maybe you care a bit more about car cloutings, tire thefts, car thefts. While none of these are crimes against persons, they tear down the social fabric of our inner city neighborhoods. Law abiding citizens who become tired of the petty crimes. The assault on our pocketbooks and peace of mind causes people to flee the city. Urban decay spreads. More crime. More decay.

P.s. That perp was hauled into jail some weeks ago. Last week  there were reports on our neighborhood online chat list that residents are experiencing package thefts again. Guess who is probably out of jail.

[iris lily]

Im with Yaeger, I am all for legalizing all kinds  of substances we put into our bodies but I will not pay taxes that address consequences of that.

...what?  You'll pay the taxes to lock them up (SO MANY people locked up for drug crimes), but you're not okay with shifting those funds to treat them instead of locking them up?  That seems so twisted to me, I hope I'm misinterpreting that.  =/

I want to see a net reduction in money going to social services/law enforcement. Proponents of legalizing drugs wail about the awesome cost to society  of enforcement. well then, lets reduce some costs.

[arebelspy]

Im with Yaeger, I am all for legalizing all kinds  of substances we put into our bodies but I will not pay taxes that address consequences of that.

...what?  You'll pay the taxes to lock them up (SO MANY people locked up for drug crimes), but you're not okay with shifting those funds to treat them instead of locking them up?  That seems so twisted to me, I hope I'm misinterpreting that.  =/

I want to see a net reduction in miney foing to social services/law enforcement. Proponents of legalizing drugs wail about the awesome cost to soceity  of enforcement. well then ,lets reduce some costs.

Naturally I think it will reduce costs and save money (though that's a secondary benefit for me), but your stance seemed to be no money towards rehab ("I will not pay taxes that address consequences of that.")

By paying for treatment, rather than prison, I think we achieve the net reduction in costs as you state in this latest post, and also do the more empathetic, humane thing.

[iris lily]

Im with Yaeger, I am all for legalizing all kinds  of substances we put into our bodies but I will not pay taxes that address consequences of that.

...what?  You'll pay the taxes to lock them up (SO MANY people locked up for drug crimes), but you're not okay with shifting those funds to treat them instead of locking them up?  That seems so twisted to me, I hope I'm misinterpreting that.  =/

I want to see a net reduction in miney foing to social services/law enforcement. Proponents of legalizing drugs wail about the awesome cost to soceity  of enforcement. well then ,lets reduce some costs.

Naturally I think it will reduce costs and save money (though that's a secondary benefit for me), but your stance seemed to be no money towards rehab ("I will not pay taxes that address consequences of that.")

By paying for treatment, rather than prison, I think we achieve the net reduction in costs as you state in this latest post, and also do the more empathetic, humane thing.

Sure, if it is a direct replacement of money from prisons to social services and the result is net less, and you can PROVE it (impossible with human services) sure, it would be fine with me.

[Uturn]

By paying for treatment, rather than prison, I think we achieve the net reduction in costs as you state in this latest post, and also do the more empathetic, humane thing.

Sure, if it is a direct replacement of money from prisons to social services and the result is net less, and you can PROVE it (impossible with himan services) sure, it would be fine with me.

Why do we need to prove it instead of try it?  We know the current system does not work.  There would probably be some overlap in spending, and I'm ok with that.  I think the long term costs would drop tremendously. 

I do volunteer work as a re-entry mentor for Family Pathfinders.  Most of my clients are drug/alcohol offenders, and all of our clients are non-violent offenders.  The last stats that I saw show that the recidivism rate for people that go through out mentoring program is 17% when the non-program rate is 76%.  That is a fucking huge drop, and since most of the people are volunteers it does not cost much.   

Most of the people that I work with are actually taught this way of life, they don't really know any other way.  Locking them away with more advanced criminals and never addressing the root problem of criminal thinking is never going to solve a damn thing.  Yes, there is a portion of the population (rapists, murderers, etc..) that just need to be removed from society, but to lump those people in with a 23 year old who doesn't think anyone gives a damn and gets high to compensate is just asinine. 

[iris lily]

By paying for treatment, rather than prison, I think we achieve the net reduction in costs as you state in this latest post, and also do the more empathetic, humane thing.

Sure, if it is a direct replacement of money from prisons to social services and the result is net less, and you can PROVE it (impossible with himan services) sure, it would be fine with me.

Why do we need to prove it instead of try it?  We know the current system does not work.  There would probably be some overlap in spending, and I'm ok with that.  I think the long term costs would drop tremendously. 

I do volunteer work as a re-entry mentor for Family Pathfinders.  Most of my clients are drug/alcohol offenders, and all of our clients are non-violent offenders.  The last stats that I saw show that the recidivism rate for people that go through out mentoring program is 17% when the non-program rate is 76%.  That is a fucking huge drop, and since most of the people are volunteers it does not cost much.   

Most of the people that I work with are actually taught this way of life, they don't really know any other way.  Locking them away with more advanced criminals and never addressing the root problem of criminal thinking is never going to solve a damn thing.  Yes, there is a portion of the population (rapists, murderers, etc..) that just need to be removed from society, but to lump those people in with a 23 year old who doesn't think anyone gives a damn and gets high to compensate is just asinine.

I didnt say that anyone has to prove cost savings in advance, and no one will anyway. Any opportunity to spend more tax dollars is a win for many in human services.
You rate of recidivism is very impressive, it would be lovely to see that implemented across te board.

[BlueMR2]

War on drugs is pretty dangerous too.

A friend and his family were recently surrounded by a SWAT team while out in the yard at home.  On nothing more than the claim of an informant in an entirely different state, they swooped in with guns drawn on a person with a very generic name who has absolutely nothing to do with drugs.  Tried to bully them into a confession then despite not even having the correct date of birth for the person in question.  One itchy trigger finger and it could have been yet another improper shooting.  Or, if they weren't relatively strong folks, they could have been yet another one bullied into a false confession and resulting improper imprisonment.

All because of the sheer lunacy of trusting an informant (someone trying to cut a deal is NEVER going to be a reliable source of information)!

[Yaeger]

Naturally I think it will reduce costs and save money (though that's a secondary benefit for me), but your stance seemed to be no money towards rehab ("I will not pay taxes that address consequences of that.")

By paying for treatment, rather than prison, I think we achieve the net reduction in costs as you state in this latest post, and also do the more empathetic, humane thing.

It somewhat undermines the entire argument though. One of the main reasons behind the big push for decriminalizing most types of drugs is the understanding that the dangers of drugs have been overblown and laws reflect that. You can't decriminalize the use of drugs around that premise and then support MORE use of public funding towards rehab when you've admitted that the danger/damage is exaggerated.

Pinning for more rehab funding implies that the drug problem is not overblown.

[Telecaster]

Naturally I think it will reduce costs and save money (though that's a secondary benefit for me), but your stance seemed to be no money towards rehab ("I will not pay taxes that address consequences of that.")

By paying for treatment, rather than prison, I think we achieve the net reduction in costs as you state in this latest post, and also do the more empathetic, humane thing.

It somewhat undermines the entire argument though. One of the main reasons behind the big push for decriminalizing most types of drugs is the understanding that the dangers of drugs have been overblown and laws reflect that. You can't decriminalize the use of drugs around that premise and then support MORE use of public funding towards rehab when you've admitted that the danger/damage is exaggerated.

Pinning for more rehab funding implies that the drug problem is not overblown.

The implication is that drug use/abuse is a public health problem, not a criminal problem.   Therefore, we should tackle the problem via our public health agencies, not the criminal justice system. 

[Metric Mouse]

Naturally I think it will reduce costs and save money (though that's a secondary benefit for me), but your stance seemed to be no money towards rehab ("I will not pay taxes that address consequences of that.")

By paying for treatment, rather than prison, I think we achieve the net reduction in costs as you state in this latest post, and also do the more empathetic, humane thing.

It somewhat undermines the entire argument though. One of the main reasons behind the big push for decriminalizing most types of drugs is the understanding that the dangers of drugs have been overblown and laws reflect that. You can't decriminalize the use of drugs around that premise and then support MORE use of public funding towards rehab when you've admitted that the danger/damage is exaggerated.

Pinning for more rehab funding implies that the drug problem is not overblown.

The implication is that drug use/abuse is a public health problem, not a criminal problem.   Therefore, we should tackle the problem via our public health agencies, not the criminal justice system.

Same with alcohol or tobacco treatment programs, if that makes sense Yeager.  The decriminalization aspect is also arguing that the current system is not as effective as treatment would be, and so any reduction in costs from the CJ system could be used for treatment.

[winkeyman]

Naturally I think it will reduce costs and save money (though that's a secondary benefit for me), but your stance seemed to be no money towards rehab ("I will not pay taxes that address consequences of that.")

By paying for treatment, rather than prison, I think we achieve the net reduction in costs as you state in this latest post, and also do the more empathetic, humane thing.

It somewhat undermines the entire argument though. One of the main reasons behind the big push for decriminalizing most types of drugs is the understanding that the dangers of drugs have been overblown and laws reflect that. You can't decriminalize the use of drugs around that premise and then support MORE use of public funding towards rehab when you've admitted that the danger/damage is exaggerated.

Pinning for more rehab funding implies that the drug problem is not overblown.

The implication is that drug use/abuse is a public health problem, not a criminal problem.   Therefore, we should tackle the problem via our public health agencies, not the criminal justice system.

Same with alcohol or tobacco treatment programs, if that makes sense Yeager.  The decriminalization aspect is also arguing that the current system is not as effective as treatment would be, and so any reduction in costs from the CJ system could be used for treatment.

I am %100 percent against the war on drugs.

If the only 2 options are to keep on like we are, OR re-direct Drug War money to treatment, I would choose the treatment option.

That being said, those aren't our only 2 options. We could end the War on Drugs, and return the money that would have been spent to the taxpayers, or use it to pay of state and federal debt, etc.

[dougules]

I'm referring to the people who are locked up waiting for a trial. Since no verdict as been given, they are legally innocent. If someone is convicted of a crime and sentenced to jail time, then absolutely lock them up. However, if they are simply arrested and haven't had any legal adjudication but we leave them locked up for months because they don't have a couple grand or whatever to post bail, that's a bad system. There are posts here seemingly every month about some new study saying that most of the country can't get access to $500 if they needed it. Most of us here are fortunate enough to not be in that situation so it can be hard for us to understand what that feels like to people with fewer resources available to them. But if someone is spending months in jail instead of posting a couple thousand dollar bond, you have to agree it's because they can't get their hands on that kind of money.

Sorry, I misunderstood.  I completely agree with what you're saying, there.  What we really need is more throughput on our legal system, but, yeah, barring that they need to let non-violent people out.  We're completely ignoring the 6th amendment at this point. 

Dude, get off your high horse. It's not about "punishing" perps because  I don't care about that. It's about giving some relief to the community they prey on.

The reality in my community that criminals dont spend much time in jail. When they are in jail they are not commitng crimes in my neighborhood, it is that simple.

I live in an urban core. The petty crime is constant. The last time
I had a cop in our livng  room was a few months ago when we were discussIng  package theft from my house. You probably wont even register that is a crime. Yet, I had  multiple packages stolen from my porch. As did my neighbors. When I saw who I thought  was the package thief, Law enforcement officers showed me mug shots from his last incarceration for--stealing packages!

You likely wouldnt care about petty thefts of packages, garden hoses, yard statuaries. Maybe you care a bit more about car cloutings, tire thefts, car thefts. While none of these are crimes against persons, they tear down the social fabric of our inner city neighborhoods. Law abiding citizens who become tired of the petty crimes. The assault on our pocketbooks and peace of mind causes people to flee the city. Urban decay spreads. More crime. More decay.

P.s. That perp was hauled into jail some weeks ago. Last week  there were reports on our neighborhood online chat list that residents are experiencing package thefts again. Guess who is probably out of jail.

A lot of people around me do only care about punishing people, so it's a bit of a sore subject. 

Yes, criminals aren't committing crime when they're in jail, but the only way for jail to fix the problem is if you put them in there for life.  Exactly what you're saying, the guy got out, and he's back at it.  Problem not fixed.  If you don't want to give the guy a life sentence for package theft, then jail/prison is probably not going improve anything. 

I agree that all these little crimes are tearing things apart.  My neighborhood is fairly quiet, but it's within walking distance of some high crime areas.  We get rashes of break-ins (my house included), so I know what you're saying.  That's why I want to figure out a smarter way to fix the problem since the current idea is not working. 

[Metric Mouse]

I am %100 percent against the war on drugs.

If the only 2 options are to keep on like we are, OR re-direct Drug War money to treatment, I would choose the treatment option.

That being said, those aren't our only 2 options. We could end the War on Drugs, and return the money that would have been spent to the taxpayers, or use it to pay of state and federal debt, etc.

Yes it could. But that would not address crime caused by drug users. Many people feel they are affected more directly by that then by federal debt.

[winkeyman]

I am %100 percent against the war on drugs.

If the only 2 options are to keep on like we are, OR re-direct Drug War money to treatment, I would choose the treatment option.

That being said, those aren't our only 2 options. We could end the War on Drugs, and return the money that would have been spent to the taxpayers, or use it to pay of state and federal debt, etc.

Yes it could. But that would not address crime caused by drug users. Many people feel they are affected more directly by that then by federal debt.

I would suggest we address personal and property crime directly and not worry about whether it stems from drug use or not. In the same way we should worry about violent crime in general, and not worry about "gun violence".

[Uturn]

Yes it could. But that would not address crime caused by drug users. Many people feel they are affected more directly by that then by federal debt.

From my experience, if you address the drug issue, the stealing issue resolves itself. 

[Jack]

From my experience, if you address the drug issue, the stealing issue resolves itself.

Yep. If drugs were as cheap, easy and legal to get as alcohol there would be very little need for anybody to steal to support their habit.

Also, if you allow legitimate businesses to sell the drugs you cut off the business model of the gangs and other organized crime. When they subsequently collapse, violent crime will drop too.

And on top of all that, once you stop packing the court system with druggies, you free up capacity to properly prosecute violent crimes and property crimes.

Finally, the economy improves because you've turned a black market into a legal industry, which can be invested in by us and taxed by the government.

It's a win-win-win for everybody but the drug cartels, the religious teetotaler nutjobs, and the police themselves (because instead of having an easy time booking stoned losers, they'll have to actually go after the more dangerous criminals).

[Yaeger]

Naturally I think it will reduce costs and save money (though that's a secondary benefit for me), but your stance seemed to be no money towards rehab ("I will not pay taxes that address consequences of that.")

By paying for treatment, rather than prison, I think we achieve the net reduction in costs as you state in this latest post, and also do the more empathetic, humane thing.

It somewhat undermines the entire argument though. One of the main reasons behind the big push for decriminalizing most types of drugs is the understanding that the dangers of drugs have been overblown and laws reflect that. You can't decriminalize the use of drugs around that premise and then support MORE use of public funding towards rehab when you've admitted that the danger/damage is exaggerated.

Pinning for more rehab funding implies that the drug problem is not overblown.

The implication is that drug use/abuse is a public health problem, not a criminal problem.   Therefore, we should tackle the problem via our public health agencies, not the criminal justice system.

Same with alcohol or tobacco treatment programs, if that makes sense Yeager.  The decriminalization aspect is also arguing that the current system is not as effective as treatment would be, and so any reduction in costs from the CJ system could be used for treatment.

We have drug treatment programs now. There's no social stigma on getting treatment, no one is going to arrest you for self-reporting an addiction problem and treatment is usually recommended as part of someone's criminal rehabilitation involving harmful drug abuse.

Is this an argument on how our drug treatment programs are inadequate? We're not a poor socialist country like Portugal that can only afford one or the other.

[Telecaster]

We have drug treatment programs now. There's no social stigma on getting treatment, no one is going to arrest you for self-reporting an addiction problem and treatment is usually recommended as part of someone's criminal rehabilitation involving harmful drug abuse.

Is this an argument on how our drug treatment programs are inadequate? We're not a poor socialist country like Portugal that can only afford one or the other.

Drug treatment programs are hugely inadequate.  Drug problems go hand in hand with mental health issues, and the treatment for mental health is also hugely inadequate.

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nida-survey-shows-lack-substance-abuse-treatment-options-offenders

Thing is, treating people with drug/mental health problems as criminals is vastly more expensive than treating them as people with drug/mental health problems.  And treating it as a criminal problem doesn't solve anything.  It hasn't worked, can't work, and will never work, because it isn't a criminal problem. 

[Yaeger]

We have drug treatment programs now. There's no social stigma on getting treatment, no one is going to arrest you for self-reporting an addiction problem and treatment is usually recommended as part of someone's criminal rehabilitation involving harmful drug abuse.

Is this an argument on how our drug treatment programs are inadequate? We're not a poor socialist country like Portugal that can only afford one or the other.

Drug treatment programs are hugely inadequate.  Drug problems go hand in hand with mental health issues, and the treatment for mental health is also hugely inadequate.

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nida-survey-shows-lack-substance-abuse-treatment-options-offenders

Thing is, treating people with drug/mental health problems as criminals is vastly more expensive than treating them as people with drug/mental health problems.  And treating it as a criminal problem doesn't solve anything.  It hasn't worked, can't work, and will never work, because it isn't a criminal problem.

Right, the problem isn't that we don't have options out there and we need to shift funding from the criminal justice system to create these treatment programs. We've seen massive increases in federal-based aid for drug prevention and treatment programs in the last 25 years. The problem is that the treatment programs we do have are ineffective and don't reflect evidence-based care. They're underutilized, their staff are poorly trained and educated in evidence-based techniques, and they aren't effective. The NYTs blog article basically say the same thing your article said 6 years earlier.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/effective-addiction-treatment/?_r=0

So no, this doesn't support a need for more rehab funding if the government can't justify that the funding will be used effectively. We already spend more on treatment than we do on domestic enforcement and treatment has been historically increasing FAR quicker than the others. I thought the source article for this graphic had a lot of interesting info (doesn't seem too biased) if you have the time, from an economics standpoint:

Federal and state governments spent $3.3 trillion in 2005 to operate government and provide public services such as education, health care, income assistance, child welfare, mental health, law enforcement and justice services, transportation and highway safety. Hidden in this spending was a stunning $373.9 billion--11.2 percent--that was spent on tobacco, alcohol and other drug abuse and addiction. A conservative estimate of local government spending on substance abuse and addiction in 2005 is $93.8 billion.
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Economics#sthash.SNjUvhwI.dpbs

[libertarian4321]

We were smart enough to end the "War on Alcohol" (Prohibition) once people realized that the "War" was doing more harm than the alcohol ever did.

Yet we keep going with the insane "War on Drugs," despite ~80 years of costly failure.

The War on Drugs is the cause of most of the street crime in the USA (just as Prohibition led to Al Capone and other gangs that do essentially the same thing the drug gangs do today). 

It's costing taxpayers untold billions to lock up drug users, most of whom have never harmed anyone. 

It's clogging our court system (to say nothing of the cost of that, too).

Yet it's such a failure that any kid in any high school in the USA can obtain marijuana any day he chooses to do so.  I don't care if that school is big or small, urban or rural, white or minority, rich or poor.

Why do we keep pursuing the failed "Drug War?"

[Shane]

War on drugs is pretty dangerous too.

A friend and his family were recently surrounded by a SWAT team while out in the yard at home.  On nothing more than the claim of an informant in an entirely different state, they swooped in with guns drawn on a person with a very generic name who has absolutely nothing to do with drugs.  Tried to bully them into a confession then despite not even having the correct date of birth for the person in question.  One itchy trigger finger and it could have been yet another improper shooting.  Or, if they weren't relatively strong folks, they could have been yet another one bullied into a false confession and resulting improper imprisonment.

All because of the sheer lunacy of trusting an informant (someone trying to cut a deal is NEVER going to be a reliable source of information)!

Where we live an extended family - grandparents, parents and grandkids - were recently woken up by the sounds of a gang of police thugs smashing down the door to their house early one morning while they were all sleeping. Police rushed into the family's bedrooms and pinned them all to the floor with guns pointed at their heads while a bunch of other cops ran around ransacking their home.

The frail, elderly grandfather of the family, especially, was devastated. All of his neighbors thought that he and his family had done something illegal. Otherwise, why would the police have raided their house?

Luckily, the family hired an attorney who filed a lawsuit against the police. It wasn't until they did that, that the family finally got an explanation of why the police had raided their house. The police claimed that some officers flying in a helicopter had spotted large marijuana plants growing in the family's backyard, and based on their statements a judge had issued a search warrant.

The patriarch of the family said, "If the police thought we had marijuana plants growing in our back yard, all they had to do was come to our door and knock. I would've gladly let them look in my backyard to prove that we don't have anything illegal growing. They didn't need to scare us all half to death by breaking down our door and threatening us with guns!"

The police department settled with the family out of court for $75K. The local newspaper quoted the family's attorney as saying she thought she probably could've gotten them a lot more if they had taken it to court, but she was really concerned about the old man's health. She said that she recommended to him that he settle and put the whole thing behind him, rather than going to court and maybe ending up having a heart attack and dying.

A former police officer I know brags about how much fun it was to use a sledge hammer to smash down people's doors during drug raids. He says it was a great adrenaline rush!

Cops suck!

[winkeyman]

War on drugs is pretty dangerous too.

A friend and his family were recently surrounded by a SWAT team while out in the yard at home.  On nothing more than the claim of an informant in an entirely different state, they swooped in with guns drawn on a person with a very generic name who has absolutely nothing to do with drugs.  Tried to bully them into a confession then despite not even having the correct date of birth for the person in question.  One itchy trigger finger and it could have been yet another improper shooting.  Or, if they weren't relatively strong folks, they could have been yet another one bullied into a false confession and resulting improper imprisonment.

All because of the sheer lunacy of trusting an informant (someone trying to cut a deal is NEVER going to be a reliable source of information)!

Where we live an extended family - grandparents, parents and grandkids - were recently woken up by the sounds of a gang of police thugs smashing down the door to their house early one morning while they were all sleeping. Police rushed into the family's bedrooms and pinned them all to the floor with guns pointed at their heads while a bunch of other cops ran around ransacking their home.

The frail, elderly grandfather of the family, especially, was devastated. All of his neighbors thought that he and his family had done something illegal. Otherwise, why would the police have raided their house?

Luckily, the family hired an attorney who filed a lawsuit against the police. It wasn't until they did that, that the family finally got an explanation of why the police had raided their house. The police claimed that some officers flying in a helicopter had spotted large marijuana plants growing in the family's backyard, and based on their statements a judge had issued a search warrant.

The patriarch of the family said, "If the police thought we had marijuana plants growing in our back yard, all they had to do was come to our door and knock. I would've gladly let them look in my backyard to prove that we don't have anything illegal growing. They didn't need to scare us all half to death by breaking down our door and threatening us with guns!"

The police department settled with the family out of court for $75K. The local newspaper quoted the family's attorney as saying she thought she probably could've gotten them a lot more if they had taken it to court, but she was really concerned about the old man's health. She said that she recommended to him that he settle and put the whole thing behind him, rather than going to court and maybe ending up having a heart attack and dying.

A former police officer I know brags about how much fun it was to use a sledge hammer to smash down people's doors during drug raids. He says it was a great adrenaline rush!

Cops suck!

+1

[Shane]

Actually, not all cops are bad.

[Jack]

War on drugs is pretty dangerous too.

A friend and his family were recently surrounded by a SWAT team while out in the yard at home.  On nothing more than the claim of an informant in an entirely different state, they swooped in with guns drawn on a person with a very generic name who has absolutely nothing to do with drugs.  Tried to bully them into a confession then despite not even having the correct date of birth for the person in question.  One itchy trigger finger and it could have been yet another improper shooting.  Or, if they weren't relatively strong folks, they could have been yet another one bullied into a false confession and resulting improper imprisonment.

All because of the sheer lunacy of trusting an informant (someone trying to cut a deal is NEVER going to be a reliable source of information)!

Where we live an extended family - grandparents, parents and grandkids - were recently woken up by the sounds of a gang of police thugs smashing down the door to their house early one morning while they were all sleeping. Police rushed into the family's bedrooms and pinned them all to the floor with guns pointed at their heads while a bunch of other cops ran around ransacking their home.

The frail, elderly grandfather of the family, especially, was devastated. All of his neighbors thought that he and his family had done something illegal. Otherwise, why would the police have raided their house?

Luckily, the family hired an attorney who filed a lawsuit against the police. It wasn't until they did that, that the family finally got an explanation of why the police had raided their house. The police claimed that some officers flying in a helicopter had spotted large marijuana plants growing in the family's backyard, and based on their statements a judge had issued a search warrant.

The patriarch of the family said, "If the police thought we had marijuana plants growing in our back yard, all they had to do was come to our door and knock. I would've gladly let them look in my backyard to prove that we don't have anything illegal growing. They didn't need to scare us all half to death by breaking down our door and threatening us with guns!"

The police department settled with the family out of court for $75K. The local newspaper quoted the family's attorney as saying she thought she probably could've gotten them a lot more if they had taken it to court, but she was really concerned about the old man's health. She said that she recommended to him that he settle and put the whole thing behind him, rather than going to court and maybe ending up having a heart attack and dying.

A former police officer I know brags about how much fun it was to use a sledge hammer to smash down people's doors during drug raids. He says it was a great adrenaline rush!

Cops suck!

+1

And even if you [meant generically] don't have a problem with the violation of that family's civil rights, you should at least have a problem with the government wasting the public's money on stupid shit they'll end up getting sued over!