Hammerhead

It is my intent as thread poster to discuss the ramifications of lowering and or reducing any charges of crack. I understand that this could become politically charged... that is not my intent.

I would like to know your thoughts on reduced drug possession sentences... why not increase the sentence for cocaine powder instead?

If we continue to lower the consequences of possession to the lowest common denominator... will the masses of society ever get a grip on addiction and the total devastation it creates?

House Passes Fair Sentencing Act - OzarksFirst.com

ItsmeAlice

I admit I am rather naive when it comes to sentencing for drug offenses. Pretty much what I know I've heard on TV dramas and reality TV such as COPS.

I thought that charges and thereby sentencing is based on the weight of what is someon's possession because of the consideration for distribution. The more drugs, the more the intent is to sell it, right? So wouldn't they have to consider how much is required of each substance for individual sale? 1 gram or ounce of one drug is not the same as 1 gram or ounce of another when it comes to how much is in a unit for sale, right?

If all that's true, then how can they make it fair and even across the board??

Aren't I going to do a hell of lot more damage out there distributing a pound of crack than I am with a pound of coke?

I agree that lessening consequences for posession and trafficking of drugs just shows that we have run out of ways to deter the drug industry and the addictions it feeds.

Alice

Hammerhead

That's what I thought as well.

Did the thought ever occur to any of the law makers to make it "fair" by raising the consequences of cocaine? Who knows.


It is said that crack is more likely to be found in the inner city... yet we all know that drugs/addiction does not discriminate.

Jazzman

There isn't enough room in the jails, something has to change. Jail is not a deterrent to a crack addict anyway so what's a better solution?

Hammerhead

I agree... we don't have room in jails... having said that I believe that's because we as a society have allowed the infestation of drugs without large enough consequences... there hadn't been a big enough deterrent in place to begin with.....so that may have produced more people who gave less thought to offend to begin with. i.e. Slap their hand and send them back to the street. IMO.

I'm not sure there is a good hard and true answer. I'm of the mindset that reducing charges isn't a good place to start either.

Perhaps we should consider removing all charges? Let them run wild... not sure that would be such a good outcome either.

liesagain

Treatment beds!!!!

In our state if you want to go to treatment you wait and wait for a bed in most centers because people who are "ordered" to treatment get the bed first

People who are sick and tired and ready for help often times have to wait so long that they end up relapsing before they can make it into treatment


rather than funding jails I vote that more funds go to treatment centers

ZombieWife

Bolded what I agree with wholeheartedly.

coyote21

Seems bassakward to me, seems the people ordered to treatment would do better if THEY waited in jail till a treatment center bed opened up. Then they'd have a jump start on sobriety when they got there. IDK

This rule in your state sounds like one of those rules/laws made by someone with zero first hand experience. I'm starting to notice this more and more, I must be getting better.


Thanks and God bless us all,
Coyote

Hammerhead

Excellent idea!

... the stint in jail before treatment also keeps the addict/dealer from selling to anyone else. Baby step for society.

Twenty years ago my ex spent 3 months in a Jamaican jail... for transporting pot. His sentence was much... much longer... his parents bailed him out. He would say those 3 months were the worst days of his life... nasty food, nasty water, no air conditioning, no toilet facilities.... evidently he has a short memory of the consequence.

I understand addicts won't get help til they want it.... but I honestly believe a treatment center would have been a worse "consequence" experience for him.

outtolunch

Those nations that impose the most severe consequences for hard core drugs tend to have the least per capita drug problem.

Those nations that trend towards benevolency, tend to have the greatest per capita drug problem.

The U.S. is the world's leading consumer of cocaine and associated by-products.

The UAE imposes mandatory prison of up to 15 years for possession and the per capita drug problem is insignificant.

China virtually eliminated centuries of opium addiction when the consequence became "shoot to kill" back in the 40's.

Rehabs do not cure addiction. Free beds in taxpayer funded rehab institutions does not cure addiction.

Maybe we could pay Jamaica to take our drug offenders. Maybe "Jamaican jail" and penal servitude would be sufficient consequence to make a dent in the epidemic.

thequest

As much as I can't stand government interfering with our lives including the illegal and legal drug abusers who do things in the privacy of their own home I'm for somekind of penalty because the abusers canNOT keep it/their abuse to the confines of their own home. Everytime an abuser lies,cheats,steal etc if effects other people as well.The thing with crack and other illegal substances that are smoked is that become airborne. Their 'business' physically becomes our business.

Maybe sentencing should have more discretion to it. From what I've heard there are many judges and legal experts that say mandatory sentencing is what's clogging the system and not working.

But everyone needs to remember to get picked up and arrested one probably already did something illegal or is suspected of a CRIME.

JenT1968

My slant would be to decriminalise drug use completely, but to ramp up the negative consequences for those whose drug use leads to criminal behaviour; which probably isn't the majority of users of many types of drugs. Legalise supply through controlled, secure outlets, decreasing the involvemnt of organised crime and increasing the safety of the product resulting in less harm for those who are addicted, and tax them to high-heaven to fund treatment programmes for addicts.

JenT1968

report the least per capita drug problems. Most of them are very closed societies, ior extremely poor with woefully inadequate independent reporting of anything, or both: you trust China's figures?

In comparison wth many european countries, america has a hard-line approach to drug-use and a higher per capita usage, you also have a greater percentage of your population in Jail than anywhere else (by loads, 758 per 110K, the next closest is Rwanda at c.600, the UK in comparison is about 150).

The US IS hard-line.

Many drugs are not addictive or particularly dangerous, and placing them on a legal par with Alcohol, with appropriate driving bans and other safeguards to ban directly dangerous behaviours (rather than possession/supply which is not inherently dangerous) would IMO be a better way of targetting resources.

CrackQuack

In my corrections books I have learned that we pay over 23,000 dollars a year PER inmate to house and feed them. Over 50% of prison inmates are there for drug offenses usually possession of 1 gram or LESS of the illegal substance (street values of $5.00-$90.00). Critically thinking we are paying WAY TOO MUCH for this war on drugs. Over 140 billion dollars last year. Is it worth it?
Recidivism rates are high. In other words, these people continue to return to jail/prison despite the sentencing laws. Even harsher penalties are not making a difference.
The media and politics would have society believe there are many victims and billions of dollars lost due to the use and abuse of drugs when the opposite is true. Median loss due to crime committed because an addict is trying to feed their addiction: 300.00. Except for the addict harming themselves (and we're talking physically, not mentally), drug abuse is mostly victimless crime.
Critically thinking, there has GOT to be a better way and this supposed war on drugs is a HUGE bust.
Time to keep them out of jail/prison and find cheaper alternatives that work. We need corrections that help the addict (you can get your drugs in jail/prison, don't think you cannot), namely helping them realize the problem and giving them the avenues in which to get themselves clean and stay that way.
We will never have a perfect system. I believe that lowering the sentencing guidelines is a positive step in the right direction for society as a whole. Honestly, I think anything under a gram should be a ticket or community service that the offender pays for, out of their OWN POCKET. Period. We're paying WAY TOO much for dealers, addicts, and recreational users as a whole. Tax payers are the BIGGEST losers in this "war on drugs".
And while the last part is my opinion, the statistics are fact and can be easily read online or in my books. Check out the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Many of the statistics related to prison and drugs are online. Including the skyrocketing incarceration rates of minority males AND ALL females.
And the United States is the LEADER in number of prisoners (2.3+ million- little over 1% of our population). We're ahead of China! WHOA. I don't know about anyone else, but it doesn't make me feel any safer (because crime hasn't gone up, just more things are made illegal), I certainly don't want to pay 23,000+ a year to incarcerate people caught with less than $300.00 of something illegal on them, and I REALLY do not want to be in a country where we're number 1 in prison rates. Ewwwwww....