War on Drugs

[ProdigalSeeker]

It's my sincere belief as Christians we are given a mandate to heal and to reconcile sinners with God. What we have in place are draconic laws that create a $50 billion dollar a year business keeping the sick - sick and imprisoned (physically as well as spiritually). As a recovering alcoholic, had I lived in America in the 1920's, I would have more than likely been jailed for my sickness, rather than reformed. It is only through my highest power, Jesus, was I redeemed.

My question is - given our mandate, why do we not stand up and demand reforms to our system of keeping the sick subjugated?

[IowaLutheran]

I agree. I have been an attorney for 12 years, and I take court appointments from the local federal court to represent people charged with various crimes. Non-violent drug offenders, most of whom are selling simply to support their own habit, are often sentenced to 10 years or more. There is no parole in the federal system, only a small deduction for good behavior, so a 10 year sentence usually means around 8 1/2 years behind bars.

Some offenders deserve to be locked up. But many receive sentences far beyond what is necessary. Nonviolent offenders with minimal criminal histories should be locked up for a short time to clean up, then be released with an ankle bracelet, be allowed to go to work, go to treatment, and take mandatory random drug tests. Instead, we are locking them up for an extended period of time and paying to keep them behind bars instead of allowing them to become taxpaying citizens.

[Edial]

It's my sincere belief as Christians we are given a mandate to heal and to reconcile sinners with God. What we have in place are draconic laws that create a $50 billion dollar a year business keeping the sick - sick and imprisoned (physically as well as spiritually). As a recovering alcoholic, had I lived in America in the 1920's, I would have more than likely been jailed for my sickness, rather than reformed. It is only through my highest power, Jesus, was I redeemed.

My question is - given our mandate, why do we not stand up and demand reforms to our system of keeping the sick subjugated?
OK. Let's look at it from the perspective that this is sickness.

What do you suggest we do if the ones that are sick (alchoholics) enjoy their sickness and do not want to get well?

[Edial]

I agree. I have been an attorney for 12 years, and I take court appointments from the local federal court to represent people charged with various crimes. Non-violent drug offenders, most of whom are selling simply to support their own habit, are often sentenced to 10 years or more. There is no parole in the federal system, only a small deduction for good behavior, so a 10 year sentence usually means around 8 1/2 years behind bars.

Some offenders deserve to be locked up. But many receive sentences far beyond what is necessary. Nonviolent offenders with minimal criminal histories should be locked up for a short time to clean up, then be released with an ankle bracelet, be allowed to go to work, go to treatment, and take mandatory random drug tests. Instead, we are locking them up for an extended period of time and paying to keep them behind bars instead of allowing them to become taxpaying citizens.
How do you explain tha fact that if they are selling to others, these others might act violent while on these drugs?

Also, how do you explain that maybe about all the dealers that are selling know the tough jail sentences, yet keep on selling?

[ProdigalSeeker]

What do you suggest we do if the ones that are sick (alchoholics) enjoy their sickness and do not want to get well

With this issue, in a utopia Iowa's idea would be perfect.
be allowed to go to work, go to treatment, and take mandatory random drug tests

Unfortunate as it is though, people need to want to get better first. The Govt. saying, "You are free on the condition that you get well." Won't work unless they want to be clean first.

However, the Drug market is booming behind the walls of prison as well as outside. In fact there people don't really mess around with the "Soft" drugs (marijuana, alcohol, etc..) but the hard ones (coke & derivatives, pcp, meth) as they are less bulky and can yield greater profits.

As far as what to do with the ones that don't want help... it would be convenient to lock them away, but christian? There is a precept in AA that I use for my evangelism. Attraction rather than promotion. I am not going to tell anyone that they need to be a christian or they need to be sober... but if the fruits of my reformed life should serve as an inspiration to open dialogue, that's a step in the right direction.

how do you explain that maybe about all the dealers that are selling know the tough jail sentences, yet keep on selling?

I explain it as an illicit market created an artificial price structure making it far more lucrative to sell the product. When you throw in poor economic opportunites (either because of location or because of thier own ignorance -- not getting even a GED) you have a ready-made army to sell the drugs.

[ProdigalSeeker]

How do you explain tha fact that if they are selling to others, these others might act violent while on these drugs?

Violent offenders should receive jail time -- same as the possibility of jail time for people that abuse legal drugs for violence related activities.

[IowaLutheran]

How do you explain tha fact that if they are selling to others, these others might act violent while on these drugs?

Also, how do you explain that maybe about all the dealers that are selling know the tough jail sentences, yet keep on selling?

Your second question proves the point that toucgh jail sentences don't work; they just have caused more people to be behind bars and our taxes to go up because we have one of the highest rates of incarceration in the world.

[Edial]

Your second question proves the point that toucgh jail sentences don't work; they just have caused more people to be behind bars and our taxes to go up because we have one of the highest rates of incarceration in the world.
But if they willfully sell while knowing that the sentence would be harsh, they certainly would sell more if they know that the sentence would be shorter.

So what do you propose?

[IowaLutheran]

But if they willfully sell while knowing that the sentence would be harsh, they certainly would sell more if they know that the sentence would be shorter.

So what do you propose?

Actually, I stand corrected now that I think back on my years of working with these people. First time convicts generally have no idea that the federal drug laws are that harsh (i.e. 10 year minimum sentences with no parole).

So, see my post (# 2 in this thread) for first time drug sellers.

If they continue dealing in large quantities after a previous conviction, then more severe punishment is appropriate.

[ProdigalSeeker]

I believe there needs to be a distinction made. First, there are "Soft" drugs. These would include, but not limited to, marijuana, alcohol, and television :D . While they do have the potential for abuse- they are not, in most cases, going to get your family robbed for their acquisition.
Second distinction, I don't want my tax dollars going to arrest cancer patients. Even if there was absolute 0 medicinal benefit to marijuana, I don't support arresting terminal patients. Maybe that's just me though. There are some that would claim decriminalization proponents want medicinal use decriminalized so that all use would be. I personally don't see why that is an issue. If we look at the people that are receiving marijuana legally for therapeautic use and see that no harm has befallen society... it might be a good idea to look at blanket decriminalization.

[ProdigalSeeker]

If they continue dealing in large quantities after a previous conviction, then more severe punishment is appropriate.

Yet another distinction... are we speaking of dealers or the user?

[Edial]

What do you suggest we do if the ones that are sick (alchoholics) enjoy their sickness and do not want to get well

With this issue, in a utopia Iowa's idea would be perfect.
be allowed to go to work, go to treatment, and take mandatory random drug tests

Unfortunate as it is though, people need to want to get better first. The Govt. saying, "You are free on the condition that you get well." Won't work unless they want to be clean first.
...
As far as what to do with the ones that don't want help... it would be convenient to lock them away, but christian? There is a precept in AA that I use for my evangelism. Attraction rather than promotion. I am not going to tell anyone that they need to be a christian or they need to be sober... but if the fruits of my reformed life should serve as an inspiration to open dialogue, that's a step in the right direction.
OK. The treatment won't work if the addict wants to continue doing drugs.

And you are saying that if a person does not want to get well he would need to be locked away. OK.

How would you establish if a person wants to get well or just pretending so not to do time?
(I am not saying I disagree with you, I am just asking the "hows").


However, the Drug market is booming behind the walls of prison as well as outside. In fact there people don't really mess around with the "Soft" drugs (marijuana, alcohol, etc..) but the hard ones (coke & derivatives, pcp, meth) as they are less bulky and can yield greater profits.
True.



how do you explain that maybe about all the dealers that are selling know the tough jail sentences, yet keep on selling?

I explain it as an illicit market created an artificial price structure making it far more lucrative to sell the product. When you throw in poor economic opportunites (either because of location or because of thier own ignorance -- not getting even a GED) you have a ready-made army to sell the drugs.
Agree.

[ProdigalSeeker]

And you are saying that if a person does not want to get well he would need to be locked away. OK.

I'm not saying that and apologize if that's the way it came across.
it would be convenient to lock them away, but christian?
No, what I was saying is that wether or not they want to get well -- it should not be a criminal issue, but a medical and spiritual one.

If an addict committs a crime to support their habit, I would not support that being a factor in their sentencing. But come on, lets be honest... how many "reefer addicts" are there in the world committing crimes to support habits? At keast with marijuana, the worse that can happen (and this is still pretty bad) is it makes you ok w/ being bored. It's during the times that you are bored that you should be learning new things, helping people, and praising God.

We've tried the current model of laws - and it's not worked. I'm not saying stop trying to end addiction (because is this an attempt to end addiction - or jail people so we can create more jobs?).

[Edial]

And you are saying that if a person does not want to get well he would need to be locked away. OK.

I'm not saying that and apologize if that's the way it came across.
it would be convenient to lock them away, but christian?
No, what I was saying is that wether or not they want to get well -- it should not be a criminal issue, but a medical and spiritual one.

If an addict committs a crime to support their habit, I would not support that being a factor in their sentencing. But come on, lets be honest... how many "reefer addicts" are there in the world committing crimes to support habits? At keast with marijuana, the worse that can happen (and this is still pretty bad) is it makes you ok w/ being bored. It's during the times that you are bored that you should be learning new things, helping people, and praising God.

We've tried the current model of laws - and it's not worked. I'm not saying stop trying to end addiction (because is this an attempt to end addiction - or jail people so we can create more jobs?).
From what I understand, people are jailed in order to protect the society.
How would you suggest we protect the society from drunk drivers? Drivers that are high? Their motor skills are slow.
Take away their license? Drunk and high people drive without license all the time.

[ProdigalSeeker]

How would you suggest we protect the society from drunk drivers? Drivers that are high? Their motor skills are slow.

I already stated my view on people that get caught for crimes related to their addiction.

[Edial]

How would you suggest we protect the society from drunk drivers? Drivers that are high? Their motor skills are slow.

I already stated my view on people that get caught for crimes related to their addiction.
I believe you said that violent offenders should receive jail time.
I am talking about drunk or high drivers that are stopped at a check point.
They did not yet kill or hurt anyone with their car.

Thanks,
Ed

[ProdigalSeeker]

Sorry for the confusion. What I meant was violent offenders as well as well as crimes committed while under the influence of the substance. But the actual usage of it should not be illegal. If you can have a beer and not commit any other crimes there is no harm to society. If... and this is a huge
IF
One can do the same with other drugs... society is not in danger = should not be criminal. It seems to me, and this is absolutely IMHO- the role of the law should be to protect society from "Evil-doers" not to protect people from themself.

[ProdigalSeeker]

Then... is or isn't addiction a medical issue?

[Edial]

Sorry for the confusion. What I meant was violent offenders as well as well as crimes committed while under the influence of the substance. But the actual usage of it should not be illegal. If you can have a beer and not commit any other crimes there is no harm to society. If... and this is a huge
IF
One can do the same with other drugs... society is not in danger = should not be criminal. It seems to me, and this is absolutely IMHO- the role of the law should be to protect society from "Evil-doers" not to protect people from themself.
I understand that and agree.

But, let's say you are a cop.
And you stop a car at a check-point.
There is this jolly fellow behind the wheel high as a kite.
Let's say you do not arrest him, but let him walk away, because he did not commit any crime against society.

Next week that same guy drives while high and kills a pedestrian.

What would you, as a cop, do the next time when you stop a person that is under influence while driving?
Would you say the law should allow him to walk away?

Thanks,
Ed

[ProdigalSeeker]

as well as well as crimes committed while under the influence of the substance.

Am looking forward to your answer on this though, as it goes to the heart of the OP.
Then... is or isn't addiction a medical issue?

[Edial]

Then... is or isn't addiction a medical issue?
Hmm.
I would say that addiction is medical, yet mostly psychological.

[ProdigalSeeker]

I would totally agree. Aren't disorders of the mind a medical issue?

[Don5925]

Well, let me offer some thoughts from the police side of things. I just recently left a unit that focused solely on methamphetamine production and related issues. First, let me say hate the drug not the abuser. While I realize that the legalization of some drugs, especially marijuana is an attractive concept to some, I deplore it. While I don't think I ever had to fight a weed smoker, I never saw a meth head that didn't smoke weed. If you ever held a crack baby you would likely never want to give tacit approval to crack.

Addiction is a disease but its symptoms are illegal. In the example above relating to a check point. If the officer new the driver was high, he should have gone for operating under the influence.

Possession charges should result in counseling, no exceptions.
Dealing or manufacturing charges should result in jail time with counseling. The problem is, at least with meth, the recovery rate, long term is about 6%. But we have to try.

Drug use is also an economic issue, and like any such issues, you need to look at both supply and demand. We can do a better job shutting down the importation routes and the growing areas, but it has not received high enough government priority.

[ProdigalSeeker]

While I realize that the legalization of some drugs, especially marijuana is an attractive concept to some, I deplore it.
I never saw a meth head that didn't smoke weed.
Very true, and neither have I. I also haven't seen any that don't smoke cigarettes.
I can understand the reasoning here. I would counter however, that with the resources from decrim of marijuana resources would be freed up to allow more emphasis on what should be higher priorities. At the same time, it will allow for less overcrowding so we are not in the place of letting rapists out early so we can lock up "Tommy Chong". The funds would also be able to go into preventative programs for "at-risk" youth.

Possession charges should result in counseling, no exceptions.
Dealing or manufacturing charges should result in jail time with counseling.

I agree with this as well, but (and I am not doing my own side any favors here)- you can't help someone unless they want the counseling.

[Don5925]

Tobacco does provide some unique challenges. It has been a part of US society pre-Europa. I will also admit that marijuana was made illegal to combat Mexican immigration. That said, while tobacco is proven to be more addictive than weed, it does not cause the user motor impairment as does Mary Jane. While cigarettes may be the first step into drug use (maybe alcohol depending on the person) weed is the first step into the illicit drug world where physical and emotional changes are clearly noted and often repeated and enjoyed.

[ProdigalSeeker]

No argument here. But because people enjoy motor impairment (some people) is no reason to keep it illegal.

[Don5925]

It is when that impairment causes societal damage, ie vehicle crashes, poor work or student performance, not to mention the 4X cancer risk when compared to cigarettes. At some point it comes down to what society says is OK. I don't think it is worth the damage to say it is OK to burn weed. But hey I am an uptight, Catholic, Republican, cop, what do you expect, brother?

[ProdigalSeeker]

It is when that impairment causes societal damage, ie vehicle crashes, poor work or student performance, not to mention the 4X cancer risk when compared to cigarettes
I agree up to the cancer risk part. If someone wants to get cancer, that's up to them- not my tax dollars.

But hey I am an uptight, Catholic, Republican, cop, what do you expect, brother?

That's why I love CF. I'm a relaxed (but not slacker :D ), protestant, libertarian, gen x'er.

[Don5925]

It is your tax dollars when the uninsured seek treatment. Hey it looks like we have better than 75% agreement and that ain't bad. Don

[ProdigalSeeker]

It is your tax dollars when the uninsured seek treatment. Hey it looks like we have better than 75% agreement and that ain't bad. Don

True, but it shouldn't be tax dollars paying for treatment. It should be non-profits and churches. I don't mind paying, I just want to give my $ to an entity with some type of accountability.