So is your position it's okay to break the law if you are poor? What about the lives destroyed by drugs?

 

The U.K. judicial system also has a three strikes rule with mandatory minimum sentencing and works very well, so what's the issue?

 

I couldn't give a toss about drug taking, and drug abusers, it's the people subject to their crime to finance their habit that take my sympathy. Duterte has the right idea, and it seems to be working well. Unless the US government give out free drugs it will always be crime related. I read a book a few years back where someone who lost a son to drug misuse infiltrated a Colombian drug ring and poisoned a huge stache of drugs. The fear of what may have been a lethal dose brought hard drug taking to an all time low in the USA, in the novel. It was quite an interesting read

 

So on top of drink driving you also want people off their heads on legal drugs driving around? The situation re: driving is already becoming a big problem with the illegal stuff, with many of those dying in accidents having illegal substances in their systems.

Do you think if they legalised drugs that crime would somehow cease? The criminal gangs involved in drugs would just move into other areas of crime and the poor, weak, and feckless would again be their victims.

You have only to look back at our own history to see that criminality of various sorts has been linked to the above demographic since the dawn of time.

 

Honestly, it is genuinely baffling the leaps people make in these arguments. Who said anything about driving? Drink driving is illegal, yet drinking is not. Why would legalising or decriminalising the use of drugs connote giving the ok to drug driving?

Drug crime would be reduced. What, do you think criminals who could no longer commit drug related offences would decide to try their hand at murder? Or arson? Sure, you might get people moving to other vice issues like pimping, but there's nothing to stop you trying to tackle those issues as well. And it's certainly not an argument for doing nothing to say that there will always be some crime.

Sure, so let's help them out of the trap of drug crime, help them to stay out of prison and give them more and better opportunities to engage productively in society.

 

No we don't, not in the same context of the American system. We don't have felony crimes for a start and we don't give life terms for the 3rd offence.

What we do have is a 3 strikes burglary rule, where on your 3rd offence you get a min of 3 yrs (not life) and we have a 2 strikes policy on knives, with min being 6 months (not life)

Yes but our mandatory minimum sentencing is reasonable, with respect to each crime. We are talking minimums of 6 months, or a few years, nothing at all like the US system of 10, 20 years dished out like smarties. It still allows judges a lot of discretion dependant on circumstances

So we are not even playing the same game, let alone in the same ballpark. That's why ours works and theirs doesn't

The point is not to criminalise mass swathes of your population who do no other crime than take a recreational drug you have deemed illegal, rather than other recreational drugs you allow.

And for the people who do get into personal trouble through addiction over alcohol drugs, you treat it as a health issue, not a criminal one.

That way you don't end up with 5% of the world's population and 25% of the worlds prison population.

 

The hole in that system is the "minimum" sentencing is rarely adhered to. The tories were going to bring in a mandatory 1yr sentence if caught with a knife. Not happened.

The theory goes: If you were to permanently lock up the 1% of the population committing crimes 90% of all crime would disappear overnight. That's because repeat offending is still a big issue and the big issue is sold by...

I used to believe in full criminalization of all drugs. Now I sit in a balance of criminal actions and personal liberty.

 

Anything that anybody wants to do to themselves that doesn't affect anybody else should be legal. If that person has to rob people to afford the habit, or punches somebody in the face when under the influence then those are already crimes and don't need more laws.

Someone growing weed in their house and then smoking it themselves or sharing it with friends without money changing hands isn't really something that needs to take up police time.

 

My position is that prohibition has failed and we should help those addicted to drugs rather than putting them in prison.

But that's a different thread.

 

Good job the US now has a President who wants to do something about lobbying. #DrainTheSwamp.

 

So no evidence at all. Just heresay and the word of a specific section of society. As I thought.

Good job the world doesn't work like that or we wouldn't have left the caves.

Just keep covering your ears and believing what you want to believe.

 

Do they go to prison for being addicted to drugs or for the crimes they make to feed their habit. It's a tough one. For starters though I think:

- States should be able to legalise Marijuana if they want to (already happening);
- Keep the bad hombres of the Mexican cartels off US soil.

 

Good job he's not merrily appointing lobbyists.

 

Could say that, it is surprising but its not politics which elects the president its the people and the choice is made. Kudos to Obama for showing leadership on that point, its a case of tough deal with it and I guess Romney thinks the best he can do is in damage control in handling USA allies. Not sure I agree, he is another businessman isnt he so Im slightly mystified why him especially

 

Why would not criminalizing drug users be the same as allowing drug users to drug drive? In the same way drink driving is illegal yet drinking alcohol is not.

The same as decriminalizing drug use shouldn't be mixed up with not criminalizing crimes comitted by drug users.

You're also falling for the argument that decriminalizing drug use will increase drug usage. Studies show this isn't necessarily the case, especially when it goes hand in hand with rehab.

A good example is Portugal, which decriminalized drug use 16 years ago.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...anyone-dies-from-a-drug-overdose-in-portugal/

Rather than throwing people in jail who's only crime was using a drug (as opposed to selling or stealing money/property to feed their useage) you provide a way to helping them control their addiction/dependence, either by walk in clinics or by forcing them to go to rehab clinics. The aim is to get them off drugs and reduce the chances of them committing crimes in the future. Going to prison isn't going to help them - reoffending rates in the US system are horrendous and all you're doing is making someone a hardened criminal, rather than helping them get back on the right track.

Parts of Canada are also going down a similar track where, rather than fully criminalizing drug use BC (for example) are providing drug clinics where people can go and inject with fresh needles and in a safe environment, while providing drug counselling and in some cases free heroin (for those failing in rehabilitation). Doing so is getting people off the streets, reducing their needs to steal to fund their habit and providing a safe and stable environment so they can get back on track.

It's not going to "solve" all crime no, but hopefully it'll become even more obvious soon that sticking drug users in jail is no better than lopping someones hand off for stealing bread.

 

That's the same President that is bringing his family (that are in control of his businesss) into official meetings?

Isn't that lobbying on an even more intimate scale?

Do you not see the complete hypocrisy there, or are you just ignoring it?

 

The number of people behind bars for nonviolent drug law offences increased from 50,000 in 1980 to over 400,000 by 1997.

47% of people in jail in America today are there for drug offences. Not crime to feed their habit but purely for drug offences.

Source.

 

Private for profit prisons, yo. Modern day slave labour, as someone said earlier. If all the low end Mexican workforce gets sent packing you can expect them to want to up prison numbers to compensate.

 

Would that be the same 'president ' that lobbied Florida’s attorney general Pam Bondi $25,000
lawl
Words are cheap and trumps words even cheaper, actions speak volumes and they say trump is full of ****!

 

You have a very simplistic view of the world my friend.