Originally Posted by Tboy321025

Anyone against them as much as I am? Some people are being put into jail for 15-20 years for possesing large amounts of hard drugs like cocaine, while murderers, serial rapists, and armed robbers can get away with less? Yes, you should serve jail time for repeated offenses of making, dealing or distributing, but is it necessary for 15-20 YEARS??? Addicts should go into rehab, it has been proven to be 15 times more effective at getting them off the drug, and costs about half the price a year. We have millions of dollars going down the drain to keep non-violence offenders in jail, while we let murderers, arsonist, etc, off with lesser sentences. anyone?

for info go to www.famm.org and i'll see if i can get more sites.

I find it absurd that, in any case, a committer of a victimless crime should get a harsher sentence than a committer of a real crime. Conservative authorities obviously prioritize their lifestyle-controlling ideals above their crime-stopping obligations. That isn't the purpose of government under any circumstances.

Originally Posted by Dzeron

I find it absurd that, in any case, a committer of a victimless crime should get a harsher sentence than a committer of a real crime. Conservative authorities obviously prioritize their lifestyle-controlling ideals above their crime-stopping obligations. That isn't the purpose of government under any circumstances.

I find it more annoying that my tax dollars are being spent to keep little petty criminals in jail while the real criminlas walk the streets. Differ some of this money from the small time criminals' containment and out into cacthing the real ones!

Originally Posted by Tboy321025

Anyone against them as much as I am? Some people are being put into jail for 15-20 years for possesing large amounts of hard drugs like cocaine, while murderers, serial rapists, and armed robbers can get away with less? Yes, you should serve jail time for repeated offenses of making, dealing or distributing, but is it necessary for 15-20 YEARS??? Addicts should go into rehab, it has been proven to be 15 times more effective at getting them off the drug, and costs about half the price a year. We have millions of dollars going down the drain to keep non-violence offenders in jail, while we let murderers, arsonist, etc, off with lesser sentences. anyone?

for info go to www.famm.org and i'll see if i can get more sites.

While I don't wholly disagree I doubt that a majority of those caught possessing "large" amounts of "hard" drugs are actually "addicts". Now the numbers of those in jail for growing and/or possessing "modest" amounts of marijuana and the massive enforcement costs to surveil and apprehend them are an unjustifiable tax burden IMO.

I find it absurd that, in any case, a committer of a victimless crime should get a harsher sentence than a committer of a real crime.

you you use violany / non-violent, then i agree with you.

why not put a RF anclet on them, and make them work for there own room and bourd?

Mandatory minimums are absurd and rip judges of their discretion-the entire purpose they are there, essentially robbing them of their purpose in this situation.
As far as the offenders are concerned, like someone else said, someone carrying a large amount of drugs is probably planning on doing a little more than just using them. As much as I think these people need to be put away, in the end, it doesn't do a whole lot. Most of the time, another dealer will pop up to take their place, but that is always where we end our pursuit in the drug war. We rarely, if ever, move our way up the chain. To be honest, I think this is most likely because there is money flowing at high levels of our government, but that's another story. If we really wanted to do something about the drug problem in this country, which I see as by far our biggest domestic problem, we would follow the trail wherever it leads us. Much of the time, with drugs like cocaine and heroin, the trail would lead into other countries, like I don't know, let's say COLUMBIA. This also means beefing up the Coast Guard which is our first, and sometimes only, defense agains drugs coming in from other countries. But the Coast Guard is always the most underfunded element of out military. While the Pentagon will pay absurd amounts to defense contractors for work that hasn't been done, the Coast Guard goes on needing more of the basics. Even when Reagan exploded the military budget in the 80s, he CUT money to the Coast Guard. (Starting to see why I say money might be flowing at high levels of government?) We need to do all we can to keep drugs out of this country, and fight the production of drugs within this country.

It's all a question of Malum Inse laws versus Malum Prohibitum laws. Malum Inse laws are everyone's "Real Laws", laws that prohibit murder, theft, rape, etc. Malum Prohibitum laws are laws that say things are wrong not because they are bad in and of themselves, but because the government has said they are bad (ex.: speed limit, smoking in courthouses, and drugs). Mandatory minimums aren't put there as a personal penalty, but rather as a form of prevention. The powers that be want a person who is lighting up a joint to stop and think, "If I smoke this, I'll go to jail for X amout of years." The problem is that most people don't do this. Either they don't know the laws, or they don't think they'll get caught. If mandatory minimums are to remain, which I favor, it is of great necessity that these laws are made 100% clear to the public that if arrested you will be 100% punished. The mandatory minimum laws are a good idea, but need polishing and to be taught to the public they seek to incarcerate.

Originally Posted by B_Lizzle

Mandatory minimums aren't put there as a personal penalty, but rather as a form of prevention. The powers that be want a person who is lighting up a joint to stop and think, "If I smoke this, I'll go to jail for X amout of years." The problem is that most people don't do this. Either they don't know the laws, or they don't think they'll get caught. If mandatory minimums are to remain, which I favor, it is of great necessity that these laws are made 100% clear to the public that if arrested you will be 100% punished. The mandatory minimum laws are a good idea, but need polishing and to be taught to the public they seek to incarcerate.

You are saying that they are there to be a deterrent. Well, as you yourself even say, they aren't working. But the reason they aren't working isn't that people don't know the laws, it is that they couldn't care less what the laws are, so making them more clear won't do a darn thing.

Originally Posted by B_Lizzle

It's all a question of Malum Inse laws versus Malum Prohibitum laws. Malum Inse laws are everyone's "Real Laws", laws that prohibit murder, theft, rape, etc. Malum Prohibitum laws are laws that say things are wrong not because they are bad in and of themselves, but because the government has said they are bad (ex.: speed limit, smoking in courthouses, and drugs). Mandatory minimums aren't put there as a personal penalty, but rather as a form of prevention. The powers that be want a person who is lighting up a joint to stop and think, "If I smoke this, I'll go to jail for X amout of years." The problem is that most people don't do this. Either they don't know the laws, or they don't think they'll get caught. If mandatory minimums are to remain, which I favor, it is of great necessity that these laws are made 100% clear to the public that if arrested you will be 100% punished. The mandatory minimum laws are a good idea, but need polishing and to be taught to the public they seek to incarcerate.

so you're saying that as a kid, let's say i get curious, and make a mistake, as most kids tend to do. I smoked crack or something, does that mean i should go to jail for 4-5 years?? for ONE mistake? shouldn't i do something like probation and community service to LEARN from my mistake? and as to addicts, they're just waiting to get out of jail, so they can go shoot up or smoke or whatever. It has been shown that treatment, not jailtime, makes recoverey and staying away from the drugs FIFTEEN TIMES MORE EFFECTIVE. and don't we want to get these people off the drugs? don't we want to HELP them, instead of locking them up and throwing away the key for who knows how many years! also as Master_shake so wisely put it, it RIPES the judge of one of their sole purposes there, deciding case by case the jail time. if it's not case by case, then there is always that one little case that deserves WAY more or WAY less, making the system biased as hell.

Originally Posted by Master_Shake

Mandatory minimums are absurd and rip judges of their discretion-the entire purpose they are there, essentially robbing them of their purpose in this situation.
As far as the offenders are concerned, like someone else said, someone carrying a large amount of drugs is probably planning on doing a little more than just using them. As much as I think these people need to be put away, in the end, it doesn't do a whole lot. Most of the time, another dealer will pop up to take their place, but that is always where we end our pursuit in the drug war. We rarely, if ever, move our way up the chain. To be honest, I think this is most likely because there is money flowing at high levels of our government, but that's another story. If we really wanted to do something about the drug problem in this country, which I see as by far our biggest domestic problem, we would follow the trail wherever it leads us. Much of the time, with drugs like cocaine and heroin, the trail would lead into other countries, like I don't know, let's say COLUMBIA. This also means beefing up the Coast Guard which is our first, and sometimes only, defense agains drugs coming in from other countries. But the Coast Guard is always the most underfunded element of out military. While the Pentagon will pay absurd amounts to defense contractors for work that hasn't been done, the Coast Guard goes on needing more of the basics. Even when Reagan exploded the military budget in the 80s, he CUT money to the Coast Guard. (Starting to see why I say money might be flowing at high levels of government?) We need to do all we can to keep drugs out of this country, and fight the production of drugs within this country.

A:
New dealers will pop up (as you say) as long as there is demand for the product.

B:
There will be a demand for drugs until the end of civilization.

C:
The legal system will reap the harvest as long as possible.

This has little to do with mandatory sentences, but it does lead to the conclusion that drug traffic, use and punishment for both will be around longer than the current population will live.

Crystal-meth labs have sprung up all over the country. Internet access has made the information available to anyone that wants it as to how to manufacture numerous drugs. The illegal drug problem will exist essentially forever. There is no valid argument to conclude otherwise. The current "war on drugs" is a farce and not much more than a money machine for the legal system, including police, lawyers and state coffers.

The only thing fair about mandatory sentences is that the criminal has been notified (whether he paid attention to the law or not) of the sentence. If you are caught with X amount of Y drugs, you shall spend Z years in prison.

If mandatory sentences are to be had for drug possession, they should also be applied to other crimes, taking the judge's discretion in sentencing completely away.

Originally Posted by jim's trucking

...The illegal drug problem will exist essentially forever. There is no valid argument to conclude otherwise. The current "war on drugs" is a farce and not much more than a money machine for the legal system, including police, lawyers and state coffers.

So true or so it would seem.

Do you believe there is any way to break the cycle that exposes our youth to recreation through chemistry or is this simply a basic human failing?

Originally Posted by sinjin

So true or so it would seem.

Do you believe there is any way to break the cycle that exposes our youth to recreation through chemistry or is this simply a basic human failing?

I believe it's akin to a nuclear reaction. The explosion is happening all around us and will continue until all the available energy has dissipated. There is nothing we can do to stop it, except maybe kill all the children.

I would attribute the problem to the lack of concern by the majority of parents. For every one of us who dares to keep their children away from the dark side, there are likely scores who don't care, and a few who encourage or enable their children and others to do whatever they choose.

Originally Posted by jim's trucking

If mandatory sentences are to be had for drug possession, they should also be applied to other crimes, taking the judge's discretion in sentencing completely away.

Why on earth do you think that "other crimes," and by that I assume you mean just about all other crimes, should have mandatory sentencing laws????

Originally Posted by Master_Shake

Why on earth do you think that "other crimes," and by that I assume you mean just about all other crimes, should have mandatory sentencing laws????

I'm not sure I really do, but if it's fair for drug possession, it should be fair for other crimes.

One advantage would be taking away the disparity among leniant and harsh judges. I'm aware of two counties in Georgia where a DUI in one gets you a slap on the wrist and in the other, you're in jail for a longer time than most shoplifters.

Judge Roy Bean's philosophy was "convicted by twelve, hung by six!"...a fair trial followed by a decent hangin'.

Originally Posted by jim's trucking

I would attribute the problem to the lack of concern by the majority of parents. For every one of us who dares to keep their children away from the dark side, there are likely scores who don't care, and a few who encourage or enable their children and others to do whatever they choose.

I've met far more people from what would be considered sound family units that used recreational drugs than from broken or deprived families, etc. Disposable income levels facilitate broader bands of experimentation and usage. Except for that constant percentage of the population that will always be totally controlled by alcohol or drugs to a point of desperation, it seems that every generation tries to blame something for society's ills. Not being a good Christian brought punishment including death by hanging in the puritan era, prohibition of alcohol presented the bootlegger gangster era and now our prisons are filled with drug users and low-level dealers. Solutions to social problems, real and imagined, have always been difficult to find, but we always manage to blame something while still facilitating profit margins for those who control supplies of whatever happens to be 'evil' or 'good' at any particular time.