RS7, thanks for your reply. Again, you have brought up good points. To wit:
Again, thanks for your reply. Good stuff to chew on.
Peace.
Absolutely right.Quote from rs7:
But the vast majority of crimes are committed by addicts that have, for example, no jobs due to their use of drugs, and therefore need to rob and steal and burglarize and commit street crimes to get the money they need to support their multi- hundred dollar a day habits.
I think you misunderstood me. My point is, if drugs are cheaper, don't they then become available to a broader segment of the population that could not otherwise afford them? One of the reasons people stay away from drugs is the knowledge that they're so expensive. So if they're no longer expensive, you may get a flood of new addicts who decided to sample on the basis that they believe they can now afford to have a habit. Then, once they're hooked, we all know that it leads to poor performance on the job and eventual firing. So now you have all these unemployed addicts. The fact that drugs are cheaper is irrelevant, because now they have no money at all anyway. Result? They need to go out and steal and commit crimes to get money to buy more drugs. You may have a situation where instead of one addict needing to commit a single robbery to fund a $200 a day habit, you now have 4 addicts each needing to commit a crime to fund a $50 a day habit.You say: "Wouldn't it just make more drugs available to more people and create even more masses of addicts who would go on to cause higher rates of crime?"
My response to this is NO! Why would they commit crimes if not for the need for the money to get drugs? Do you think that drug addicts get high and feel the need to go commit crimes while under the influence of drugs? I think it is the opposite. When they are under the influence, they are harmless to others (for the most part). They are either unconscious or incapable of going out, let alone going out with the intention of committing crimes. Drugs alone do not stimulate criminal behavior for the most part. Again, it is the need for money to obtain drugs that leads to drug related crime.
Thanks for the clarification.You ask me: "Furthermore, you're assuming that cheap and legal drugs would lead to the addicts "being dead soon anyway." Are you thus in effect promoting a means for mass overdoses? If so, you have to eliminate the treatment of addicts to get them to overdose, don't you? Would the public, and especially the supposedly more compassionate liberal left, support non-treatment and in effect just let the addicts kill themselves?"
No, I am not "promoting" the means for "mass overdoses". ...I truly think that education and the availability of rehab programs should be made MORE available. I would think that if an addict was willing to go through a de-tox program, it would be a lot cheaper for society to try and save these poor souls by paying for these rehabilitation programs than to keep them in jail....So decriminalization of drugs would free up a lot of financial resources that could be used for rehabilitation and detox treatment rather than prison and court and police spending to fight an unwinnable war on drugs.... again, better to spend the money on treatment than on punishment and imprisonment and getting the unfortunate side effect of the hardening of "criminals" (many of whom are guilty of only possession) that occurs in prison. So the incarceration of these people leads to more harm than good over the long run. Cure them, if they are willing. Jailing them does not "cure" them, it makes them worse, not better. There is not much "correctional" behavior achieved in our "correctional facilities" (prisons).
Hmmm. I was not aware of the Rockefeller Laws. I'll have to research that. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Having said that, I don't know if making dealers more desperate is in itself a good enough reason. Not to sound cold, but law enforcement is a dangerous business that carries risks. We don't stop pursuing criminals simply because they may act violently when cornered.But I don't think making drug dealing a capital crime is either. When the "Rockefeller Law" was implemented in NY, it led to more violent crime. The law required (I believe) mandatory life sentences for drug dealers. This led to more desperate attempts by cornered offenders to shoot their way out. Better to kill a cop than to face life in prison.
There are no easy answers. Certainly a death penalty for drug dealers would have devastating results during the attempted arrests (for the same reasons as cited above in regard to the Rockefeller Laws). Capital punishment would be even worse than mandatory life sentences insofar as making suspects more dangerous. More desperate.
Again, thanks for your reply. Good stuff to chew on.
Peace.
