BadComrade wrote:Ok, so your brother in law is a meth addict... I encounter meth / heroin / etc addicts just about every day I'm at work. I'd say that unless you're a meth addict, I don't think you can tell me that you know more about it than me or anyone else does.

Do you really think he'd be part of "respectable society" even if he hadn't been to jail? Would he be going to dinner at the Governor mansion, high on meth, if he hadn't been to jail for it? How about teaching school kids, or driving a city bus?

Is it this black and white to you? Either it's a) Fucked up, meth-head, or b) "Respectable member" of society, eating watercress sandwiches with the governor?

Why would you support laws that while not doing what they're intended to (i.e. keeping drugs from people's hands), actively jail people for what should be their own decision?

BadComrade wrote: How about you don't blame the judicial system for his fucked up life? Blame him for choosing to do meth in the first place.

If it's not a violent act, why should people have to be punished for buying, selling or possessing drugs?

BadComrade wrote:No one has to try heroin, or cocaine, or meth. It's a choice a person makes. Once they've made it, they're probably going to be fucked for a long time.

You're right, no one has to. But why shouldn't people be allowed to decide for themselves?

BadComrade wrote:Ok, so your brother in law is a meth addict... I encounter meth / heroin / etc addicts just about every day I'm at work. I'd say that unless you're a meth addict, I don't think you can tell me that you know more about it than me or anyone else does.

Do you really think he'd be part of "respectable society" even if he hadn't been to jail? Would he be going to dinner at the Governor mansion, high on meth, if he hadn't been to jail for it? How about teaching school kids, or driving a city bus?

Seems like you'd like to blame "the system" when someone chooses to violate it. Did the system tell him to try meth? Did he not know that he could wind up in jail for whatever the fuck he did to get himself there? Last I heard, you can't be thrown in jail for being an addict, so I'm sure he did something illegal to get there (like buying meth, or stealing something to buy meth...). How about you don't blame the judicial system for his fucked up life? Blame him for choosing to do meth in the first place.

No one has to try heroin, or cocaine, or meth. It's a choice a person makes. Once they've made it, they're probably going to be fucked for a long time.

He's a smart guy, he could have been a mechanic, and often fixes my car, but he's addicted to a substance that's illegal and there are no legal courses to obtain that substance or any effective treatment to help him kick the addiction. Any path to self-improvement has been cut off by the law. The same things would happen to people you know and respect if tobacco or alcohol was made illegal and the same penalties put in place. My brother can't quit meth, but he can't quit tobacco or alcohol, either. Yet if he only had the last two problems, you wouldn't consider him a junky or someone worthy of jail time simply for consuming them.

The system is the problem because it is unjust. Jailing people for abusing themselves, or making a mistake and becoming addicted to a harmful substance, is like giving people the death penalty for attempting suicide. Why should he respect the system when that system is irrational, arbitrary, and doesn't even respect him as a human being?

BadComrade wrote:No effective treatments to help him kick an addiction, or none that are free to him? I'm guessing you meant none free to him.

If he can't afford rehab, then it's not an option for him.

I've never met a cigarette smoker who steals for a living to support his smoking habit.

Because tobacco isn't illegal. It causes all sorts of damage, probably more than all the illicit drugs combined, and it's more addictive than heroin, but because it's legal people aren't forced into becoming criminals to satisfy their addiction to it. If it was ever made illegal, all of the problems associated with it would be amplified and people would start breaking into your apartment to steal your shit to fund their tobacco habit.

I would bet that more people that are in jail because of drugs aren't there because they got caught with drugs, it's because of something else they got caught doing to support their habit.

You can go to jail for simple possession. People go to jail for that all the time. My brother first went to jail because he was caught with a pipe that had marijuana resin in it. If you are white and/or middle class you are much less likely to go to jail for that kind of offense, but it does happen.

BadComrade wrote:

Skronk wrote:Is it this black and white to you? Either it's a) Fucked up, meth-head, or b) "Respectable member" of society, eating watercress sandwiches with the governor?

Show me a CEO of a Fortune 500 company that's addicted to meth. Show me a house burglar that isn't addicted to something.

What about stockbrokers addicted to coke, or heroin? Or it doesn't happen? Doctors addicted to painkillers, alcoholic whoevers? I'll go out on a limb and say if a CEO is addicted to something, chances are he's a functioning addict, capable of supporting his addiction.

BadComrade wrote:

Skronk wrote:Why would you support laws that while not doing what they're intended to (i.e. keeping drugs from people's hands), actively jail people for what should be their own decision?

Because, those peoples "own decisions" often interfere with other peoples lives.

So then why is alcohol legal? Why the double standard?

Someone breaking in to my apartment and stealing all of my shit isn't a "violent act" either. I'd like to think that if they get caught trying to sell my shit, they'd go to jail for it. I'd also like to think that someone would be arrested if found with my shit. If someone out there pays $100 for something of mine that's worth $5000, then fuck them too.

Sure, someone doing heroin, or meth, or whatever... that's their own decision if they want to put that shit in to their body. But the moment they start to steal to keep their habit up, or the moment some guy on PCP decides to rape your girlfriend and eat her face up, it becomes "our" problem. I'm not saying that every single drug user in the country fits this description, but I bet a lot more do than you're willing to admit / believe.

I'd also like to see the burglar put in jail. If he's stealing shit for drugs, he should get treatment, then go to jail. What about alcohol then? Make vodka illegal to curb drunken domestic violence? Drugs are one thing, the actions your driven to because of addiction are another. Of course burglary, and violence become "our" problem, and that should be punished, but possession/selling and ingesting is not.

Skronk wrote:You're right, no one has to. But why shouldn't people be allowed to decide for themselves?

Because as I said before, in many cases, once someone decides to do that, more often than not their decisions often affect other peoples lives in a negative way.

We've got a double standard. As I've said before, the criminal act is separate from simply holding or being addicted. Outlawing drugs to curb crime is like putting a band aid on a wound. It doesn't stop drugs from hitting the streets, and it sure as hell doesn't stop the crime, it just adds to the prison population.

People get drugs no matter what, legal or illegal, so then why keep up this charade that these laws are working, when non violent people keep ending up in jail?

BadComrade wrote:I've never met a cigarette smoker who steals for a living to support his smoking habit.

The simple fact that making it illegal makes the price jump sky high, so the addict will pay whatever the dealer wants to get his fix. Cigarettes are legal, and the price reflects that. As does alcohol.

BadComrade wrote:Dude, cigarettes are like $9 a pack in Chicago.

And they're almost $8 in Manhattan, I think. $5.50+ here upstate. It's still a hell of a lot cheaper than drugs.

fidelista wrote:You can go to jail for simple possession. People go to jail for that all the time. My brother first went to jail because he was caught with a pipe that had marijuana resin in it.

It does not sound like you are telling the whole story. No one goes to jail on a first-time paraphernalia charge without a prior criminal history.

BadComrade wrote:Of course there are "functioning addicts", just as there are functioning alcoholics. My point is, most of the people in jail because of "drugs" are there because they were doing something else illegal to support their habit. (I'm leaving drug dealers out, of course). That's why I said "show me a burglar who isn't addicted to something".

People in jail for drugs are in there because they got caught with drugs, attempting to buy or sell drugs, or possessing paraphernalia. If they were caught stealing shit for drug money, or mugging people, they would have been in jail for theft or robbery. They wouldn't be counted as one of the 450,000 people in jail only for violating drug laws.

sunset_gun wrote:

fidelista wrote:You can go to jail for simple possession. People go to jail for that all the time. My brother first went to jail because he was caught with a pipe that had marijuana resin in it.

It does not sound like you are telling the whole story. No one goes to jail on a first-time paraphernalia charge without a prior criminal history.

Our town is run by mormons.

BadComrade wrote:

Skronk wrote:What about stockbrokers addicted to coke, or heroin? Or it doesn't happen? Doctors addicted to painkillers, alcoholic whoevers? I'll go out on a limb and say if a CEO is addicted to something, chances are he's a functioning addict, capable of supporting his addiction.

Of course there are "functioning addicts", just as there are functioning alcoholics. My point is, most of the people in jail because of "drugs" are there because they were doing something else illegal to support their habit. (I'm leaving drug dealers out, of course). That's why I said "show me a burglar who isn't addicted to something".

If drugs were legal, the price would substantially drop, so it's more affordable. But legality aside, what we need is greater treatment, so the addict wouldn't have to resort to crime to get his fix.

Even if there are more people in jail because of other crimes, related to drugs somehow, it says nothing about those that should not be there, i.e. causal users/ non violent ones.

BadComrade wrote:Because there are a lot more people in this country who can buy a 6 pack of beer, drink it responsibly, and not fuck with anyone else in the process. Yes, there are drunk drivers who hurt other people, and there are drunks who beat the shit out of their wives, bar patrons, etc... and a lot of them wind up in jail. I guarantee you there aren't as many responsible meth addicts, crack addicts, or heroin addicts as there are consumers of alcohol.

And there are also responsible drug users out there. Ones that caught up in the legal system because of possession, or selling. Criminalizing one drug while another that can wreak havoc is legal, is just hypocritical. All drugs can be used responsibly.

BadComrade wrote:If you don't want to wind up in jail, then don't get caught. Last time I checked, cops don't break your door down because they think you smoke crack on the other side of it. If you get pulled over, and have crack in the car, then guess what? You fucked up by getting pulled over. We live in a society with laws, deal with the consequences of them.

You're sounding like the angry Marsup now. If you or I get caught with something, whatever, crack, weed, why the fuck should we go to jail for it? We're big boys who can decide for ourselves what to ingest. We live in society with laws, of course, but there's no law that's set in stone. If you can make one, you can change or get rid of one. Prohibition is the greatest example of a narcotics law that the majority of people didn't stand for, so it was repealed.

You support legalization of weed, yet you don't care if the others are illegal. Why not extend that to all drugs so users don't have to fear draconian laws, or in essence, become criminals themselves?