cumplidor 0 #1 April 7, 2008 "States may free inmates to save money.." To bad they just don't legalize MJ and that would auto-pardon most of the convicts anyway?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #2 April 7, 2008 Quote"States may free inmates to save money.." To bad they just don't legalize MJ and that would auto-pardon most of the convicts anyway?? I wonder what percentage of people imprisoned on drug charges are there ONLY on drug charges. I bet most inmates have drug charges somewhere on the list. linz-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #3 April 7, 2008 Quote"States may free inmates to save money.." To bad they just don't legalize MJ and that would auto-pardon most of the convicts anyway?? It wouldn't "auto-pardon" them unless the law was specifically written to make it retroactive. At the time the act was committed, it was illegal, so the people in jail will probably stay there (but people don't typically stay long on marijuana charges, depending on your state). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #4 April 8, 2008 In California, something over 60% of the prison population is jailed on drug related convictions. A complete waste of jail space and law enforcement resources. We seem to be too stupid to learn from history. The Volstead Act was supposed to free the US from the great scourge of alcohol. It was made illegal and lots of resources were applied to enforce the law. All it did was make criminals out of ordinary citizens, create a huge business opportunity for people like Al Capone and Joe Kennedy, and created a network of organized crime that continues to this day. Prohibition doesn't work. In my view, it is also anti-American. What ever happened to personal freedom, and its conjoined twin, personal responsibilty? Why should the goverment control what recreational substances the citizens use? It is no ones business what adults do on their own time, as long as they aren't hurting anyone but themselves. Ever read any of the independent research about the success or failure of the DARE program in the schools? IIRC, the New England Journal of Medicine published a major study of how (not) successful the program was. The study showed that DARE students had a much higher rate of use and abuse of illegal drugs than non-DARE students. Having read through the DARE materials, I totally understand why. They are full of outdated and disproved information. In other words, a load of lies and BS. Once the kids figure out they were lied to, they start experimenting. One of the other creepy things about DARE is that they indoctrinate the kids to look for signs of drug use by the parents and encourage the kids to report it to the cops. Recreational marijuana users have been turned in by their own kids. Reminds me of the best times in the USSR. We all should be very proud. DARE continues to this day, in spite of the fact that it produces the opposite result of what is intended. There is a lot of money available for DARE and the program continues on. We wouldn't want to appear to be soft on drugs, after all. "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up!" seems to be the way many people approach the issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #5 April 8, 2008 QuoteWhat ever happened to personal freedom, and its conjoined twin, personal responsibilty? It died - people demanded the freedom and shunned the responsibility.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,726 #6 April 8, 2008 By coincidence, today is the 75th anniversary of the first legal sale of beer in the USA after Prohibition. Prohibition is a stupid idea; it was in the 1920's and it still is.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #7 April 8, 2008 QuoteBy coincidence, today is the 75th anniversary of the first legal sale of beer in the USA after Prohibition. Prohibition is a stupid idea; it was in the 1920's and it still is. AgreedMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 14 #8 April 8, 2008 Quote It died - people demanded the freedom and shunned the responsibility. Wow, I like that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 14 #9 April 8, 2008 Quote DARE continues to this day, in spite of the fact that it produces the opposite result of what is intended. When our kids were in DARE, we told them to ask the instructor why, in the 1920's in our country, marijuana was legal and alcohol was not. I never heard back on that one, though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Clownburner 0 #10 April 8, 2008 Ask yourself why the government needed a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, but somehow decided they didn't need one to ban drugs.7CP#1 | BTR#2 | Payaso en fuego Rodriguez "I want hot chicks in my boobies!"- McBeth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,726 #11 April 8, 2008 Quote Quote DARE continues to this day, in spite of the fact that it produces the opposite result of what is intended. When our kids were in DARE, we told them to ask the instructor why, in the 1920's in our country, marijuana was legal and alcohol was not. I never heard back on that one, though. One of my 4 kids was in DARE. He is the only one to become a substance abuser.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #12 April 8, 2008 Quote Quote Quote DARE continues to this day, in spite of the fact that it produces the opposite result of what is intended. When our kids were in DARE, we told them to ask the instructor why, in the 1920's in our country, marijuana was legal and alcohol was not. I never heard back on that one, though. One of my 4 kids was in DARE. He is the only one to become a substance abuser. Empirical evidence, or just a statement regarding coincidence? This is not a slam against you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 14 #13 April 8, 2008 Quote One of my 4 kids was in DARE. He is the only one to become a substance abuser. Sorry to hear that. Hopefully he'll get back on track. Small joke, but I'm guessing the rock musician. Am I right? BTW, do most of you delineate between drug user and drug abuser? Remember, alcohol is a drug, just happens to be in liquid form. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,726 #14 April 8, 2008 QuoteQuote One of my 4 kids was in DARE. He is the only one to become a substance abuser. Sorry to hear that. Hopefully he'll get back on track. Small joke, but I'm guessing the rock musician. Am I right? Right. Quote BTW, do most of you delineate between drug user and drug abuser? Remember, alcohol is a drug, just happens to be in liquid form. Alcohol is his abused drug of choice.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #15 April 8, 2008 That's bad news - sorry to hear that prof; haven't you dragged him out to the DZ yet? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cartoon_anvil 0 #16 April 8, 2008 I got to thinking about this the other day. I read somewhere that it costs around $70,000 per year to incarcerate a person. Wouldn't it be reasonable at that price to have the convict remain in society, but under 24/7 police surveillance? A cop walking right there with them everywhere they go. Think about it. In prison, there's the same gangs, the same drugs, the same ways to get in trouble. That's why there are so many repeat offenders. Now let's say that a person gets arrested for armed robbery. They're sentenced to 10 years. What if that 10 years was spent in public with 24/7 police escort? After 10 years of not being in the kinds of situations that precipitated that person's turn to a criminal lifestyle, they'd probably have their shit together enough to function in society. Granted, the deterrent effect of prison would be greatly reduced. But I believe that it would be offset by a HUGE reduction in repeat offenses. Let me know what y'all think Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,593 #17 April 9, 2008 >Wouldn't it be reasonable at that price to have the convict remain >in society, but under 24/7 police surveillance? A cop walking right there >with them everywhere they go. A cop (loaded) costs about $100K a year. To get 24/7 coverage, that's 4 cops, so $400K a year per "prisoner." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cartoon_anvil 0 #18 April 9, 2008 You're right. My math was way off. Aside from the salaries of the cops, there's also the expenditure of the infrastructure that supports them. The price would probably be even significantly higher than what you came up with. That being said, a DOJ report showed "that among nearly 300,000 prisoners released, 67.5% were rearrested within 3 years, and 51.8% were back in prison." http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/rpr94.htm The cost of repeat offenders should certainly not be underestimated. It's also difficult to quantify the costs associated with unmitigated perpetuation of prison culture. It's even more difficult to affix a price tag on the human cost of having 1% of everyone in our country incarcerated, many of whom just continue the cycle of violence once released. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #19 April 9, 2008 QuoteI wonder what percentage of people imprisoned on drug charges are there ONLY on drug charges. I bet most inmates have drug charges somewhere on the list. I don't know, but a friend of mine spent a year in prison for possession of meth, and I'm pretty sure she didn't have any other charges against her. She was originally put on probation after being caught with a small amount of meth, and about two years into it she had a couple of "dirty" UA's because she had started using again, so she was sent to prison. And that has been bothering me, because it doesn't seem right for her to go to prison just for being a drug addict, when she wasn't doing anything to hurt anyone else. And it's not like she's suddenly over her addiction after spending a year in prison, so it seems to be a pretty poor use of the system. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cumplidor 0 #20 April 9, 2008 Quote It wouldn't "auto-pardon" them unless the law was specifically written to make it retroactive. Of course. I brain farted that one for sure. I meant to say what you said... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gato 0 #21 April 9, 2008 I think Bill Hicks said it best: "If I was gonna legalize a drug, it sure as hell wouldn't be alcohol. Question: 2 guys at a football game get into a fight - are they drunk or are they high?" (Edited to remove unrelated quote.) T.I.N.S. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 14 #22 April 9, 2008 I'd much rather have a stoned driver coming at me on a 2 lane highway than a drunk one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #23 April 9, 2008 Quote Question: 2 guys at a football game get into a fight - are they drunk or are they high?" Depends on what you mean by "high." I think of that term as applying to all intoxicating drugs, including alcohol. But I know what your point was, so I'll shut up now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
