SpringerXDacp
New member
Would work if entering the new password a second time for confirmation wasn't required.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Albuquerque Cops Who Gunned Down Homeless Camper Face Murder Charges
- Thread starter Augustin
- Start date
Would work if entering the new password a second time for confirmation wasn't required.
utbagpiper
Banned
Citation?
To be clear, I'm looking for a citation on how many people (and what proportion of inmates) are actually in jail/prison strictly for drug convictions?
I can easily believe that a large proportion of those convicted of property crimes and various violent crimes are also using drugs or involved in the illegal drug trade. And I cannot find numbers, but get the impression from those I know working in various aspects of law enforcement and volunteering in our State prison, that it is fairly rare (not zero, but not a large percentage) who are in jail/prison for purely drug crimes.
I am NOT arguing anything about drug laws. I'm just looking for citations that we are locking up lots of pot heads for nothing but using pot.
Charles
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Copy + paste.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
There are no clear numbers, especially when you consider that those same folks you know "working in various aspects of law enforcement and volunteering in our State prison" constantly endeavor to reinforce the conflation between the two categories. For instance, I've heard many such people argue to me that it's OK because drug offenses are often used against "real criminals" when nothing else will stick.
Incidentally, that last bit is totally unacceptable. That's not how the law is supposed to work, for fairness or justice. If it were, we ought to just pass a catch-all law banning everything and use that against everyone who we believe (but cannot prove) is a "real criminal". Of course, nothing stops such an approach being used against people simply because you don't like them, which brings me to my next point...
I am loathe to reflexively cry "institutional racism!" I believe its effect on, for instance, the frequency of police shootings is overrated when compared to the general militarization of police tactics, equipment, and mindset.
However, if there is one case where institutional racism is alive and well, it's drug sentencing. White folks are, it's true, rarely sent to prison for drugs alone. It's another story for black folks. And I can't help but feel that, when prohibitionists talk about "criminals who would otherwise walk", they're implicitly talking about, essentially, blacks, and hoping their argument will resonate for what can only be emotional (dare I say racist) reasons.
For, while it may be true that blacks commit certain classes of crimes at higher rates than do whites, it's not true that blacks use drugs at a higher rate overall than do whites. If a particular black individual (or white, whatever) is truly a real criminal, convince me by convicting him of a real crime.
Not for the first time in the last couple days, I have the strong feeling you're beating around an argument you really want to make, but know can't be defended explicitly. If it's the argument I suspect it is, it ain't gonna fly. But, I could be wrong.
Still, I'm going to pretend you're asking on good faith, and provide some putative facts:
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/prisons_and_drugs#sthash.bP3saIfB.YuOeEZfC.dpbs
Of course, all those people on parole were at least for a while in prison, surviving on the public teat (of necessity). And, of course, remember that not all states even have parole, and of those that do, plenty of folks do shorter sentences (which still cost money) and aren't paroled.
Also, note that prison populations rise at a rate higher than our population growth, and of course genuine (aggressive) crime has been decreasing for the last few years. Given the remarkable rate of recidivism especially for drug users, it's unreasonable to claim that more rigorous drug law enforcement is the causal factor for the drop in crime.
Frankly, I originally began to opposite prohibition (in all its stripes) for utilitarian reasons. I prefer the moral arguments today, but even for utilitarians prohibition is not an optimific means of responding to the damage of drug use.
Last edited:
utbagpiper
Banned
And yet we frequently hear this claim that massive numbers of people, at great cost, are in prison simply for drugs. How is making such unsubstantiated claims any better for the pro-drug-legalization crowd than it is for the gun-grabbers?
I'd love to know what argument you think it is. Because I haven't a clue.
I'll be honest, I'm deeply torn on the drug issue. I did a stint as a libertarian believing that decriminalization would dramatically reduce the externalities of drug use, at least leaving the bulk of the costs to be born by the users themselves. Best evidence I can find doesn't quite support that. And yet I can't countenance military style raids into homes to seize a few personal pot plants or long prison terms for peaceful, private drug use.
Sadly, all this does is confirm my assertion that many who are in prison for some other crime, also have drug charges. It does nothing to convince me that a large proportion of our prison population are there for simple drug use convictions.
But it might reasonable to claim that higher incarceration rate are exactly the reason violent crime is falling. According to Wiki about 1% of our population is in prison and about 3% of our population was on some form of supervised release. Now what portion of our population do you figure actually engages in rape, murder, muggings, assault, and other violent crime?
Maybe about 1%? Put those folks in prison, they don't commit offenses while there. But more of them in prison, and there are fewer people committing violent crime. It isn't like there is a supply-demand curve for violent crime. Plus, it many cases, the easiest way to convince a guy not to commit violent crime is to let him age. All else being equal, most guys are less likely to be violent at 50 than they were at 20.
And what percentage do you figure engage in property crimes? Non violent types get probation and parole sooner than the violent.
I'm not interested in arguing drug policy. Frankly, I'm not convinced myself of what the best path is to presume to debate it with others.
I'm just interested in some accuracy when someone makes the claim that a large proportion of our prison population is in jail solely for drug convictions. There simply isn't evidence to back that up as you conceded.
Charles
utbagpiper
Banned
Anyone have any data on what proportion of the homeless are making a fully informed choice to be a hobo/bum, vs those who have some kind of mental illness (either naturally occurring, trauma induced, or drug related) that prevents living in a more "normal" (for lack of a better word) manner? We can no longer institutionalize the mentally ill. But so many of them clearly cannot live in regular society. One of my cousin's died as a direct result of decades spent living on the streets because his mental illness prevented him from living in a home.
During the depression it was not uncommon for hobos to knock on my grandmother's door asking if they could work for food. She'd set them to work with the ax splitting some firewood, or maybe pulling weeds in the garden while she made a sandwich or a bowl of soup. She set a place with a glass of milk on a small table on the storm porch (improper to have a man in the home proper without her husband present) and they'd get a filling meal in exchange for an hour's work. Apparently it never occurred to her that these men might be dangerous. Interestingly, none of them ever were. They were actually quite happy to do a man's honest labor for an hour in exchange for full belly.
These days, the line between "aggressive pan handling" and outright strong-arm robbery has gotten way to thin in many places.
Observations of general and rambling nature. No comments on this particular incident.
Charles
That's my point. You can't remove yourself other than not posting.
I asked to be removed by the un-moderator, and here was my reply:
"There is no mean to "unsubscribe" as such , BUT there is a way to disappear.
First cease posting then change your settings per below:
Go to Personal Messages (PMs) - look to the far left column, scroll down to My Subscriptions -click Subscriptions - at the bottom right corner is a button titled "Empty Currant Folder"
Then look a bit further down on the PM page, left column and find My Account, General Settings - select "no" wherever required if you want no contact.
Hate to see you go though - you have been around since May 2006. You do know that you have the option of being "Invisible" - others will not know you are on line. Add no notice received of postings, you can still view AND could post if the mood struck you. You can put people on "Ignore". You can custom taylor what you get and how.
What ever you decide - best wishes and good luck.
Respectfully, Dale"
So I hope I get another violation for posting the contents of a PM.
I figured my words would bring out a shill or two.
I don't think that typos are a violation of the forum's rules.
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
look mate we all want more 2A supporters here on the site. But if you're hell bent on leaving then just leave. No one is making you post.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Its a little more complicated than that. There are 3 different people currently posting as Augustin. I'm only 1 of the 3, and none of us are the original Augustin. I wanted to unsub to stop the other 2 from posting here, and forcing them to open their own account.
I believe the moderator can confirm this by looking at how many different computers are being used.
Last edited:
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
How is that even possible unless you have given them YOUR password? Change your password!
1245A Defender
Regular Member
Well,,,
to stop two others posting, take the advice below..
if you really want to be ALL gone, PM me your password, Ill sign in as you, change your settings, and your password!
problems solved!!
Why all the drama?
to stop two others posting, take the advice below..
if you really want to be ALL gone, PM me your password, Ill sign in as you, change your settings, and your password!
problems solved!!
Why all the drama?
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Bro, you act like you have some monopoly on righteous anti-statism.
Not only have some of us been at it longer than you, some of us don't allow our puerility to taint the cause by association. Get over yourself and change your password to something random.
Otherwise, I call agent provocateur.
Last edited:
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
Bro, you act like you have some monopoly on righteous anti-statism.
Not only have some of us been at it longer than you, some of us don't allow our puerility to taint the cause by association. Get over yourself and change your password to something random.
Otherwise, I call agent provocateur.
I haven't read the rules in a while but I'm sure if he reads them a way to be banned very quickly will become apparent.
Last edited:
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
lol....
Tucker6900
Regular Member
You'd end up passing out. They wont see jail time. Their brass will tell us they followed policy. Their peers will recount times of heroism. Their lawyers will tell us of the stresses of being a public servant. Their wives will tell us of the pressure their spouses are under every day. And the news will paint their victim in a bad light. On top of all of that, they are sitting at home with murder charges, drinking a cold beer, feeling good about what they did. Where you and I and any other person in this situation would be sitting in a jail cell, away from our loved ones, eating stale jail food. So, they are already getting special treatment because of their position in society.
OC for ME
Regular Member
The "drug war" is nothing but a means (scheme) for the state to garner funds it otherwise would not have garnered. In other words, a great deal easier than imminent domain.