This gives the USA the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world.
The next four?
* Rwanda
* Turkmenistan
* El Salvador
* Cuba
[1]: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/incarcera...
Land of the free
Edit: I found a variety of sources that suggest 18% of state and 15% of federal prisoners. Nowhere near as high as I was expecting.
The US doesn't actually have that much higher crime rates than other countries otherwise though
Another issue, like this article points out, is that once you're in even if you get out your life is pretty much ruined and you're much more likely to go back in
Just note that this story is about Jails, not Prison. They are different.
Rough numbers reported a lot are 1mm uighurs, 1.6mm ukrainians through Russian 'filtration' camps (though most aren't held long term).
Additionally, if you look at the racial breakdown of who's incarcerated in the USA, it's disproportionately black relative to number of blacks per capita residing in the country. Blacks are incarcerated at 5x the rate of whites, and make up 40% of all incarcerated individuals.
This is insane.
https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/300304290/mori-youth-ke...
And I wouldn’t rush to the notion that you need to be justified in using hyperbolic/metaphorical language before you can criticize the problem.
Why would kids growing up in a remote community with no work, surrounded by drug and alcohol abuse, in a culture that tolerates child sex abuse, whose brains are cooked from day one by FASD and inhalants _not_ commit more crime.
Or is there other factors?
Example from yesterday, a black pastor was arrested for watering his neighbors plants because he "looked suspicious":
https://news.yahoo.com/black-alabama-pastor-says-wrongfully-...
The police don't know who that man was, or why he was on property that didn't belong to him. They're not mind readers. If he had provided the identification (or at least his name/DOB) that they had asked for, then it probably would have become clear to them that he was telling the truth. But by REFUSING to give them any information that would prove his story true, he escalated a situation that could have been resolved without his arrest.
People seem to forget that we ask police TO INVESTIGATE. Not just walk up, accept whatever story they are given and then drive away.
Exactly. They're aren't mind readers but they made a decision that he was commiting a crime or about to commit one. They escalated it, not him.
No, actually that's not what they decided.
They decided that, before they just walk away from their SWORN DUTY to investigate without knowing who he was or whether he actually belonged at that property, they would actually do their jobs and find that out that information by doing a simple thing like asking him to identify himself.
I know some people really don't like police officers, but, in the future, you should try to make sure that that dislike doesn't make you completely irrational.
If they cannot be sued for a breach of it, do they have it?
SCOTUS opined: “Nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors.”
(DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (1989) 489 U.S. 189).
But even if you take the position that the police are not REQUIRED to do anything (and I would disagree with that position), that does not mean that they CANNOT do anything. In this case, the police CHOSE (to use a term more suitable to your position) to investigate. And nothing precludes them from choosing to do so. Or do you take the position that the police are neither required to, nor can they choose to investigate when called?
No, police have no "sworn duty" to investigate - you literally made this up out of your head.
“I, (state name), do solemnly swear or affirm that I will faithfully execute the duties of (state position) of the State of Texas, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of Texas, so help me God.”
"I do solemnly affirm that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the position of ______________________ according to the best of my ability and perform my duties in a manner consistent with the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New York."
They're all like this.
----
No, seeing a black guy watering flowers is not grounds for anything, even if they are someone else's flowers. I cannot believe I have to make this point.
So I assume those "duties" they're referring to don't include investigating when they are assigned a call. Perhaps you think "duties" just refers to sitting in their car eating donuts?
> "No, seeing a black guy watering flowers is not grounds for anything, even if they are someone else's flowers. I cannot believe I have to make this point."
Again, you have to pay attention to the actual facts when you participate in these discussions.
The police were not just driving down the street and, upon seeing a black man watering some flowers, say to themselves "he must be up to no good". They were specifically CALLED by a neighbor to the property to investigate a suspicious person on their neighbor's property (you know, the typical 'looking out for your neighbor' thing). Your position seems to be that the police should not have done anything. Simple looked at him, shrugged their shoulders and walked away.
Because that's exactly what you would want the police to do if YOU were away and your neighbor saw someone on your property and called the police to investigate. You'd absolutely want them to not find out who that person was or why he was on your property.
But that leaves the fact that white me had no reason to get my back up, because I knew the white cop wasn't being racist. So I handed him my ID and sat quietly on a privately owned rock until he was done with it.
How come black people (specifically African-Americans) are the only people who seem to have these "racism" issues with police? What about other minorities? How many Indians do you see on TV fighting with police or getting shot? What about Hispanics or Asians? Hell, what about African immigrants? It seems quite strange to me that for all this talk of "systemic racism", none of the other minorities seem to have these issues.
It's almost as if the racist police don't have any issue with any minority OTHER than black people. Which makes me think that it really has nothing to do with race and everything to do with what some people are being taught.
There was a video a few weeks ago of young black children (probably around 5-8 years old) taunting, cursing and HITTING police in Minnesota.
https://nypost.com/2022/07/12/video-shows-child-hit-and-swea...
Now, you tell me, who taught that child to behave that way? And when that child grows up, what possible interaction could he have with police that DOESN'T end up with him being beaten, shot or killed?
Everyone wants to look at one side of the issue and ignore what is going on everyday in black families and communities that leads to these confrontations.
To that point, some of the most racist people I know are black people. Growing up as a black person myself in Brooklyn, and hearing it spoken often, I can tell you that there is no one that black people around here dislike more than Jews. It's an irrational kind of hatred based on the normal nonsense "they own all the banks, they own all the property", etc. If you messed up your credit and can't get a loan, it's the Jews fault. If someone gets evicted because they didn't pay their rent for 6 months, its' the Jews fault. That kind of thing. Racism and prejudice exists in all of us.
But you're right, I probably don't really understand how racism works. Because I have never actually experienced real racism. But, to be fair, neither has 99.9% of the people you see on your TV, social media or in the streets screaming about racism because a white person put their hair in dreadlocks or some other such nonsense. What was the most recent one, Drew Barrymore frolicking in the rain was somehow "erasing black people"?
Look, no one denies that there are actual racist people in the world. But the current state of discourse on this topic is a complete joke. REAL racism is largely a thing of the past. The problem is that what people are trying to classify as real racism these days are just wildly over exaggerated claims based on there being a racist boogeyman around every corner.
The truth is that the 'everything is racist' mantra, or the overexaggerated claims of racism, is actually funded and promoted by global elites and politicians who would very much like to create as much division as possible to keep us focused on non-issues like race instead of the fact that every time one of these "crises" occurs, their net income doubles. We are sadly being played as pawns.
I want to make it clear that I agree with you 100% on that much. We're more polarized this year than last year, and we already thought it was very polarized then. I was born in the 70's, I'm an attentive and perceptive dude, and I've never seen anything close to this. People tell me it was worse right before I was born. Someone here gave me a book about the Weather Underground but I haven't finished it yet.
I think it's a blessing in a way that everyone lives in their phone. If the culture war were playing out predominately in meat space, way more people would be dying.
The kids call ideas from 20 years ago reactionary. Wait, hold up. Too many of the kids -know- and believe they -need- the word reactionary, what the fuck, and I'm not talking about vocab.
But I still maintain that the policed do not bear more responsibility than the police. The police are the professionals, and they're the ones empowered to kill people.
A bit more constructively: I suppose if everyone everywhere taught their kids the police are there to help, the way the Electric Company taught me, then that specific problem might be alleviated. Perhaps with unintended consequences. But I basically had to unlearn it, and for them it would require a comfort with a level of cognitive dissonance that I'm sure no individual can sustain, let alone a whole community. At least if you accept their history is separate. Like, my ancestors on my dad's side came here in the 1600's too, but they were on the top of the boat.
Living in Denver for three years and having great HD over the air TV I'd watch the local news while cooking meals. The local news spent considerable time discussing the issues plaguing the refugees with their relationships with certain local law enforcement agencies, as well as the large Hispanic populations. I spent a lot of time hanging out with some refugees and it was interesting to hear their perspectives versus that of my barber who was Hispanic. Not once was my refugee ever asked to prove they were here legally, but my barber was nearly every time he had any kind of interaction with the police where they had some reason to fish for a reason to ask for identification.
Where I live in Central Texas now, it's largely about Hispanic interactions in the news or the continued coverage of the most recent large school shooting here. A huge complexity added to many Hispanic populations around the US is the ability to comfortably and freely voice their frustration without risk of deportation. A lot of abuse they suffer at the hand of law enforcement goes unnoticed on the national scene because they don't want to take to the streets about it and risk losing literally everything they own including the clothes they are wearing when they are arrested.
I'm only 1/4th Hispanic and while I haven't ever been pulled in Central Texas, in the the Dallas suburb of McKinney Texas, where I lived for about a decade I got pulled over all the time and every time they were baffled when #1 I don't know Spanish at all, beyond basic food names from eating at food trucks, #2 I have a slight southern accent because I grew up in Arkansas and sound like everyone else I was around, and #3 I wasn't some easy score for them.
Of the 30+ times I got pulled over on the east-side of McKinney, not once was I ever given a ticket or arrested me but it came pretty freakin' close and I can't imagine how much differently if I didn't immediately register as "he actually might be white".
I have done the following in McKinney, Allen, and/or Frisco Tx:
* Had to do the stupid human tricks on the side of the road before noon, because they claimed I was swerving and they smelled a hint of alcohol on my breath.
* Blown in a breathalyzer in the parking lot of an elementary school because the law enforcement officer camped out using the school as place to nail speeders said I was driving erratically and was staggering as I got out of my car. The erratic driving was specifically around having issues parking. Due to an injury I needed to be able to open my car door all the way open and when I realized I couldn't, I decided to back up and move over a bit more so I could open it all the way. That was the bad driving. The stagger was actually a limp if I put too much pressure on my left leg.
To add insult to injury, the final kick in the balls, etc. was when he started trying to imply I was there for questionable reasons when I was actually there to drop off lunch to my wife who had taught at the school for several years at that point and I routinely volunteered at the school which meant I had actually passed a more rigorous background check than he did to get his job.
* Been accused of having a fake id drivers license because for whatever reason their inability to find something about me to give me a ticket or arrest me on resorts to petty accusations to attempt to get a rise out of me so that they can escalate it even more till they can arrest me for making them scared, or worse they can use their terrible training and end up panicking and pulling their weapon and firing on the extreme end outcome of things.
Too many times to count I was told in parting words I could avoid these problems staying out of the east side of town because that is where all the problems are, or for the times I got pulled over close to home in the more affluent side of town that I should get a better car so I don't stand out and look questionable.
At the time I drove upwards of 100 miles round trip a day, my daily commute car was a highly efficient but very basic American cross over SUV that I picked up used but with less than 100 miles from a rental car agency that went bankrupt. That car also happened to be one of the most popular cars for whatever reason with Mexican people in many areas of Texas. Strike 1. Because I was in the car so much with the long slow commute, I had the windows tinted to protect the interior from UV damage and to protect the left side of my body from multiple hours a day of exposure to the sun due travel directions. Strike 2. Despite identifying as white, I love Tejano music and many other Hispanic musics for their complex guitar playing. Strike 2.5. Go to rich side of Texas suburb or go to area believed to be plagued with problems with immigrants and I had a pretty high chance of getting that third strike by just driving through with music barely audible beyond my car, and I don't listen to anything with a lot of bass or even loud volume. I'm talking side by side at a red light we'd both need our windows down and you'd still probably only be able to hear it as if it was elevator music in a real elevator.
Just because whatever circles of friends or media you consume doesn't focus on a problem does not mean it does not exist. Many of these strained relationships the communities have with law enforcement are not without complex histories and a refusal largely one sided to hold their people accountable to a degree so that trust is restored and the wall of division is broken down.
I have a very short list of people I would be willing to take a physical bullet for and one of them is a cop and they aren't someone related to me, I didn't know them all my life at the time when they'd gotten on that list, etc. It was their actions and humility that put them on that list.
When the police consider their community to be their community things turn out very differently than when the police have zero vested interest in their communities. When you have law enforcement officers who view themselves as warriors and take jobs in areas where crime, especially violent crime, occurs often because they want to live out some kind of deranged fantasy of being some kind of super hero you end up with vested interest in escalating any encounter with the public.
When the police remember that they serve the public, and not the other way around things are very different. The problem is there are many communities where they are policed by outsiders who look nothing like them, have zero history with the community, and honestly don't care what happens to any of the people in those communities.
This happens all over Texas, because the fact of the matter is being a cop fucking sucks. So all levels of policing recruit from all over the state and country trying to get people to move to those areas with crime.
It is boring as hell 99.9999% of the time, so to fill that time they start figuring out any and everything they can do to fill that time. They pick whatever activities make them sleep better at night, feel like they are earning their keep, ..
The problem is when there isn't much really going on you have some people who will start creating problems just to have something to do. It is what bully's do. The problem is the power balance is very different.
Because of this very difference in power I consider it imperative to ask a question when I make the decision to call 911 for anything where I'm asking for the police, especially if the person I'm calling about is a minority: If I were to go outside with my own weapon instead, would I think their current activity and it's likely progression to be something that is worth killing them over because the minute I go outside with my own weapon visible I am making the decision that I am prepared to use it and live with whatever outcomes happen.
I extend that logic to calling 911 for anything that warrants the police and I highly encourage anyone else to seriously consider using some variation of it when they call as well.
Shocking that 55% of inmates are in for violent crimes such as murder, rape, and manslaughter.
source: https://felonvoting.procon.org/incarcerated-felon-population...
That would mean for 2mm prisoners there would be 1.1mm murderers, rapists, and manslaughterers. That seems like way too large a number to be realistic with the declining rate of murder, rape, and manslaughter.
If a rapist spends five times as long in prison compared to a drug offense, then there will be five times as many rapists behind bars if the quantity of the two crime's convictions are comparable.
I got it wrong. It's actually only 3.7% in for drug possession, not 4.5%.
I'll let you figure out your mistake from there.
The clue is: It looks like the numbers are reversed which would make a lot more sense.
- 606k violent
- 142k drug
- 159k property
- 124k public order (which includes 42k weapons and 18k DUI)
Some private prison corporations and judges both felt it was profitable enough. Two Pennsylvania judges received $2.8M in bribes from private prisons to send 4,000 kids to the private prisons with long sentences; apparently ruining 4,000 kids lives was profitable enough to justify $2.8M in bribes. One of the judges has managed to get released early.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/08/11/139536686...
https://boingboing.net/2013/08/06/judge-who-accepted-private...
E.g., private prisons likely spend at least as much in legal lobbying efforts to maintain high prison populations as they do in bribes.
That doesn’t make sense. Building a prison in itself doesn’t induce crime nor does it induce prison sentences. Judges and juries have no quotas to fill based on vacancy.
https://www.npr.org/2022/08/18/1118108084/michael-conahan-ma...
If you accept the idea of the "war on drugs", it also goes for drug offenses: by putting drug dealers behind bars, you prevent people from buying drugs and harming themselves.
I don’t think it’s a right way of framing it. It’s not about acceptance. If you look at the statistics on consumption, harm suffered from abuse or how the illegal trade is doing between highly repressive countries and countries which have legalised drugs or don’t jail consumers but try to help them kick their addiction, you can factually say that the “war on drugs” is an abject failure leading to more harm than good like prohibition before it.
The 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs is probably the most harmful thing the USA ever did to the world.
Separately I just learned fentanyl test strips are not legal in all 50 states. Given that fentanyl is a leading cause of death, giving access to test strips can save lives. I don't know how heavily this law is enforced, but it's a great example of cutting your nose to spite your face. To me it's a litmus test that reinforces the notion the USA's stance on drugs was never about harm reduction.
[0] https://substanceabusepolicy.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1...
Was it ever framed as harm reduction?
is this satire?
Even if you wanna weasel your way out of this and just say it's just "a contributing factor" (literally everything could be) how could you possibly even tie those things together?
https://famous-trials.com/george-floyd/2648-george-floyd-the...
What an absurd thing to say. Even a cursory Google search proves this to be utterly false.
Also fentanyl is a big thing because opiates are illegal. If people had a choice they'd stick to the good stuff like oxycodone, which is significantly less dangerous.
The first time, I was given an opioid (after surgery) I felt irrationally angry-- as in completely irrational anger at e.g., the color the walls were painted. After snapping at my girlfriend who was being super sweet and supportive, I immediately stopped taking them. This was pills, but I do not recall the name. The angry feeling passed within hours after missing the next dose. The period of apology lasted much longer. I can believe that someone experiencing similar irrational anger could do more than verbally snap at someone.
The second time, was Dilaudid via IV while recovering in hospital (machine with button to press to self-dose when in pain). No bad reaction this time.
I wouldn't describe either experience as euphoric. The first experience was negative and the second, other than helping with pain, was neutral.
Fentanyl is very deadly and will start spiking these numbers fast. This means we will have 180k+ yearly deaths in 2.32 years (if it didn't get worse than 2020). wtf. Fentanyl is illegal (a felony in most areas). I agree the War on drugs didn't work. But we are about to lose millions of citizens.
With the legalization of marijuana consumption has gone up. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/07/220719162133.h...
So to say they failed is not fact, very few laws eliminate the act that is illegal. Murder happens despite being illegal, and will continue to.
I would agree the cost is too high, that the policy is wrong, but it is pretty clear the illegality reduces consumption.
I don’t understand how you can compare murder with drug use (or even selling drugs). Nobody says “let me try murder today and see if I like it” but plenty of people say (and do) “let me try drugs for fun today and see if I like it”.
Not all illegal activities are the same.
> The government strains, at extraordinary expense, to pretend they can stop drugs from being made, bought and sold, but they can't.
My point is that whether or not something still happens once illegal does not have much bearing on whether it should remain so. Nor does it signal failure of the policy as long as there is reduction.
Because marijuana being illegal did reduce the production, and consumption.
In the meantime, before legalization, weed only become stronger and more readily available. Many teenagers could get it more easily than booze. That was with the government at all levels doing everything it could to stop marijuana use. With many ruined lives of otherwise free people coming with those polices.
At least in my circles, usage has gone up significantly.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbushard/2022/08/25/cannabi...
You may not like what it took to get done, but it did work. I'm not advocating for the heavy-handed approach, but it's intellectually dishonest to say that it can't work.
Also, the other countries have done it with a much smaller imprisonment per capita.
This argument veers a little bit into “sure it’s harsh but their trains do run on time” territory, at least for me.
What authoritarian countries are able to achieve at the cost of human rights would preferably not serve as inspiration, or even as a point of comparison.
You are making a very different argument - that if the US was an entirely different type of society with a different government, culture and history, then this approach might work.
I understand the desire to not needlessly arrest people, on the other hand, I think leaving them to their own devices so they can do drugs in campers illegally parked on the side of the street is no honestly solution either.
I'm all for drug confiscation. If you're caught with drugs, we just take them and destroy them. No arrest and processing, just straight surrender of the illegal substance. Use this as an opportunity to enroll users into programs and get them off of their habits and back on their feet. Use the additional manpower to truly target those who import and traffic in these substances.
Frankly, it sounds like you've never really researched or grappled with this particular social issue. Or participated in it.
Frankly, it sounds like you think this phenomenon is so unique that only a particular expert class is allowed to have opinions on it; and you're making wild guesses as to my experience in order to discount my opinion without actually putting forward the necessary arguments.
That's the entire problem right there. It's also mostly untrue - with very few exceptions there are legal ways to possess an use lots of drugs, including cocaine for example. But drug possession should never be a crime. It is a wildly illiberal approach.
"Plenty of countries have solved the drug problem by eliminating their populations; it would be dishonest to say that it cannot be done".
My preference is with a society that supports the freedom of the individual. One side-effect of that kind of society is that the unlucky and irresponsible are ill-protected. All told, I prefer that situation to an authoritarian, totalitarian, or fascist society.
It's a calculus with numerous concessions on all sides. I suspect we're highly programmed to support the perspective that corresponds to our geographic origins, even though mine's the best.
> have successfully stopped nearly all drug use and trade with heavy-handed policies.
Like Indonesia for instance? It has one of the strictest drug laws in the world supposedly. Yet 70% of the people imprisoned in the country were convicted of drug related crimes. They had this policy for many years, yet this is what their president said a few years back:
On July 21, 2017, Jokowi stated that Indonesia was in a state of emergency due to widespread drug use, consequently instructing law enforcement officers that “if [narcotics suspects] resist a little bit, just shoot them immediately.”
Which would that their strict policies, far from having stopped nearly all drug trade and consumption, were a complete failure.
Also around 2% of all people in the country are active drug users.
> but it did work
So no, it didn’t
> but it’s intellectually dishonest to say that it can’t work
Yes. Theoretically if you imprison or shot every drug user fast enough and your police force is not thoroughly corrupt it might work. Not sure both of these things can ever be compatible in practice, though.
*https://ppid.bnn.go.id/konten/unggahan/2020/10/Drug-Abuse-Pr...
And where do they get that statistic… the reality will be higher I think.
What nonsense is this? Countries with capital punishment on drugs like thailand, Philippines and singapore (and before malaysia who cancelled the death penalty but are still strict) are rife with dope; you can buy it everywhere; I mean it is literally shoved in your face on every corner. Which countries are you talking about? I been to many, I only drink (by the way; a dangerous, addictive harddrug; people tend to forget alcohol as drug), but I got offered everywhere, all the time. And there are many native users, you can see them all over the place.
UAE I don't know; I would never go there.
America has had more than a fair go at a heavy handed anti-drug policy and it was and continues to be a spectacular failure. To sit here at the end of it and say that they didn't go hard enough, (particularly after horrific actions such as poisoning marijuana and therefore smokers with paraquat) is monstrous.
Wait there are supporters of this? You're telling me if I asked 100 people on the street, there'd be someone that said "oh yeah this is a pretty fair and reasonable law to charge the inmates 5-star hotel prices"??
Confronting people on the street with questions like this won't give you a representative sample of what people really think. The sort of people who support the system to maintain their class/lifestyle are likely to ignore your question or to perceive your activist intent and lie to you to avoid getting sucker punched by the 'crazy person on the street.'
Idioms are hard! Want to apologize on behalf of the English language.
The most extreme example of this is that the site of the 1970 Lake Placid Winter Olympics was designed to be used post games as a prison, which it is today.
Ever notice that executive power is the same everywhere? They think the laws are unfair to them, because they have to implement totally unrealistic laws, and get blamed harshly for "small" problems (you know, "harshly" except it doesn't carry any consequences for them, except, at best loss of face).
They respond by not following laws, refusing even to implement judicial directives and the like. Their own (sometimes personal) interest, for them, trumps laws and the directives of judges. They have largely made sure their names are never revealed to the people they serve, as they no longer have the support of the people, and they feel they cannot be replaced.
Prison conditions in the US are infamous for the degrading of the human experience to a point of no return.
Open rape culture, radicalization, utterly despicable behavior that even barbarians would shiver at openly covered in popular culture as fact.
As someone who grew up outside the US, it is truly astonishing how fucked up the system is.
There was actually a sigh of relief in many circles when New York lost the 2012 Olympics bid, because many people did not see the benefit of holding the games being worth the massive headaches of infrastructure overload.
Sorry but wtf?! Read Manufacturing Consent. Don't demonize us. We're not down with this shit.
"Is it fair to incarcerate individuals for their preference of intoxicant in a free and liberal democracy?"
"Should drug users and other junkies be taken off the streets to keep them safe for the rest of us?"
"Do you think prisoners should be charged $250/night for their incarceration?"
“Should prisoners pay the price of their stay in prison, including room, board, food and security?”
I haven't been to them, so I can't say whether they're up to the level one would expect, but they're listed as five star hotels.
The actual mechanism probably has many more links including the voting of politicians who share the People's values, who then pass laws in the People's interest. But the underlying axiom of democracy is rule of the People, indirect as the American implementation is, is it not?
The Government isn’t a magical entity of absolute perfection. Large classes of banned substances are indeed banned for good reason. Their effects on individual/societal well being documented quite heavily.
Two things can be true at the same time: 1. Some substances that are detrimental to human health need to be controlled. 2. The US government and its present approach to enforcing laws is equally harmful and needs a complete overhaul.
I'd rather the law be more around information than control. If one believes in the idea of freedom and liberty in the US, then one should support a model where individuals are allowed to make their own decisions, but ensure the facts around such substances are well researched and publicized.
Alcohol kills, and yet is not actually very well controlled at all. Marijuana doesn't kill anyone directly, and yet the lies told about it has kept it tightly controlled, even as the real facts continue to come out.
I don't believe the government really has any obligation to keep us safe from our own poor decisions, assuming those poor decisions can be argued to be have been informed using truthful information.
Let’s just publish the literature online and let people choose their dosage of Ivermectin.
I suppose you could argue that none of these people were injured or killed by the drugs--they were injured or killed by someone misusing the drugs.
But that same argument works guns too. Good luck trying to find some convincing way to distinguish the two.
Let’s pull the stats on stabbing or blunt force trauma and ban baseball knives, kitchen knives and nail clippers as well ?
Terrorists ran people over with vehicles. So of course, renting a Uhaul van now has to come with a lengthy background check?
The absurdity of the comparison astounds me, and I’m willing to bet, would certainly astonish you were you to step outside the bubble you seem to be in. Have you met anyone that’s known or was a user of synthetics? Read up on the opioid crisis and the societal impact that’s had. It’s a crying shame that it isn’t taught in schools or spoken about even more than it is at present.
When you draw an absolute line saying drug abuse has no victims, I laugh and point out other “crimes” that do and by your logic are thus different and must be banned.
Now, if you make another point about “forcing people to buy from violent underground marketplaces”, this is where your original comment becomes entirely irrelevant and you’re projecting some unsubstantiated paranoia of yours as a factual argument.
These are addictive substances. Many if not most of them leave permanent psychological scars and inhibit normal human functioning in ways that, unlike naturally occurring substances such as coffee are considered DETRIMENTAL to societal health and safety. By limiting exposure of society to synthetics or dangerous drugs, we limit their harm.
Your argument seems to be everyone in the US population wakes up everyday thinking “where can I get five ks of that sweet sweet Birria” ?
Stop acting like a dickhead if you don’t have any experience with rehabilitating the victims of these idiotic policies you’re proposing and go outside your moms basement once in a while.
This isn't your 70s hippie weed or 80s crack. Dealing in hard drugs these days is a business with a pretty high body count due to the low LD50 of the substances involved. It's like the addictive substances equivalent of giving dynamite to teenagers. A lot of fun will be had but a lot of bad outcomes too.
So yeah, I'd say that dealing often has a victim too.
They’re also sourced from China, a geopolitical adversary where political figures routinely point to the opium wars and revenge for that period on the west.
There is a separate issue of doctors over-prescribing dangerous drugs and people abusing those drugs. I think preventing those overdoses and deaths takes a totally different approach.
You understand what “addictive substances” means , right? Your solution to protecting a population from being hooked on drugs is . . . Give them more and without restriction?
Sometimes the naïveté in the tech community amazes me.
Yes. Tons of petty criminals and low level nonviolent felons are behind bars because whatever they were doing it they did it while packing heat or had a gun in their possession when their door got kicked in.
Packing while committing some other crime is a felony by itself in many places and in the case of federal crimes (e.g. drug trafficking) a multiplicative effect on your max sentence and raises the minimum by a ton. Many/most states also have laws that copy the federal law.
This is why why drug dealers who've made it big pay someone else to pack for them and/or store their product as soon as their business can support that.
Guns also need to be controlled (in my opinion way more that they currently are) but that doesn’t mean that I am advocating for them to be illegal.
Sure they could. They just don't try because the current system is very very good for them.
Other countries like Portugal and the Netherlands have done a fantastic job on lowering their drug use rate dramatically.
And it's very simple - they treat drug consumption as a medical problem, first and foremost. Possessing drugs, any drugs, for your own personal consumption is _not_ a crime in either place.
Indeed, both countries go out of their way to provide facilities for addicts where they can safely take their drug and get medical treatment and counseling with no fear of being arrested.
----
If the United States wanted to end the drug war, they could simply look at the examples that worked and copied them. But they are much more interested in oppressing hapless addicts and jailing them.
It’s not like Vancouver or SF decided first to have safe injection sites, and then suddenly had huge heroin problems.