Jail

[IndyDave1776]

Drugs are a business, either legalize them or crucify a drug dealer every 100 yards on the interstate highway.

You have reminded me of another point. Depending on how you define 'regulate' the federal government may or may not have authority to prohibit the importation or interstate transfer of drugs but most certainly has no constitutional authority to regulate what is produced and consumed within a state. The states, however, have much more authority in such matters. My problem with the state laws as they stand is that they were the product of federal coercion, not the legislatures acting of their own volition. If the feds wanted to crucify smugglers every 100 yards along the border, that would suit me just fine (with the caveat of due process for citizens).

 

[Caldad]

Seeing this below made me curious about the population change during that time... 1925 estimate = 115 million / 2012 = 313 million. ...doesn't explain 8x growth, but does explain some of it. I wonder how many more activities are criminal now from 1925. And also, it seemed strange with population growth through out the years that there would be downward trends at times... looks like it correlates with WW2 and Nam.


==========================================

Another surprising stat: in one generation, the number of prisoners has ballooned 8x in size.

 

[cop car]

also I think ALL drugs, yes, ALL drugs should be legalized and taxed.

 

[public servant]

The biggest problem with drugs is the robbing shooting and stealing that follow them.

I've learned here on INGO that if drugs were legalized there will be no shootings and robberies. These people will automatically become useful, productive members of society.

 

[cop car]

I've learned here on INGO that if drugs were legalized there will be no shootings and robberies. These people will automatically become useful, productive members of society.

no, they would most likely self destruct quietly somewhere. problem solved. but the main benefit is that the police would have more time to concentrate on violent crimes, and the drug users would no longer be doing something illegal, instead of drugs being such a center of violent crimes against others, it would goes more the way of alcoholism and stay less public imo. in addition to it being a revenue for the state.

look at what happened when alcohol was made illegal and then legalized again.

 

[rambone]

Let's ban alcohol while we're at it. End crime as we know it!

 

[Destro]

Let's ban alcohol while we're at it. End crime as we know it!

Thankfully the 21st amendment and regulation/taxation schemes came along to save us from all the ancillary crime associated with alcohol.

 

[Destro]

they would most likely self destruct quietly somewhere. problem solved.

who's going to pay for this quiet self-destruction?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

who's going to pay for this quiet self-destruction?

Everyone with a job.

 

[littletommy]

There is an app called mobile patrol, it has book ins at jails all over the country. Very interesting to see who and what is going on around you.

 

[88GT]

Hmmm. Take that prison population graph and overlay this one:

Interesting.

But nearly worthless for making comparisons.

I've learned here on INGO that if drugs were legalized there will be no shootings and robberies. These people will automatically become useful, productive members of society.

Nobody said either of those things.

 

[cop car]

who's going to pay for this quiet self-destruction?

whoever buys the drugs? lol

 

[Bill of Rights]

Millions of harmless people?? laughable

The biggest problem with drugs is the robbing shooting and stealing that follow them.

Oddly enough, no one is robbing, shooting, or stealing for the drugs that are currently only minimally regulated, like, for example, aspirin, tylenol, etc. Sure, you don't get a buzz off of those, but it's hard to argue the issue of, say, Salvia, when the reason it exists (that is, was created) is because people couldn't get real pot legally.

While there is still crime, even violent crime, surrounding the obtaining of alcohol, the numbers and types of crimes both diminished in both quantity and severity with the 21st Amendment.

People respond better to less regulation than to more, IMHO, and while they won't all automatically become good, productive citizens, we would stop the harassment of people who ARE good, productive citizens who happen to want to have a smoke at night when they get home or even get baked on the weekend. None of this would prevent a business from prohibiting its employees from working under the influence, but it would end the problem of a life being ruined because of a malum prohibitum law's effects.

also I think ALL drugs, yes, ALL drugs should be legalized and taxed.

Taxed? Why? If I grow carrots in my back yard, should those be taxed? If I grow tobacco, for that matter, should that be taxed?

If the .gov wants a share of the cash, they should grow some of the stuff and sell it, not take the products of someone else's work. That's called theft if anyone else does it.



Oh, and for the record... no, I don't use tobacco, I don't drink alcohol, and the closest I've been to "stoned" is a contact high at a concert, the last of which was many years ago.
I'm the guy that doesn't like taking even an ibuprofen for a headache.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Alamo]

But nearly worthless for making comparisons.

....

Actually, the original graph showing the increase in the absolute number of people imprisoned was pretty worthless to start with, except to show the increase in the absolute number of people incarcerated. The drug war arrow is nice touch, but really is just a nice touch. Correlation not the same as causation, and all that. Without being able to compare those numbers to anything else that might be going on -- say increases in population and other societal changes, it is not a useful graphic.

Also, the graph is cleverly limited to prison population, not total incarceration. If one looks at the rate of total incarcerations in the United States over the previous century, one finds that the incarceration rate was higher from the 1930s to the early 1960s (over 700 persons per 100,000 population). The prison rate behind the graph presented by rambone did not even break 600 until 2002. So maybe the "war on drugs" really didn't have much to do with it. Some documentation of this can be found here: The Volokh Conspiracy - but that's not the only place.

Perhaps drug convictions serve as a proxy for something else entirely -- and if this the case, it is quite possible -- probable even -- that legalizing drugs will have little effect on crime in general and imprisonment in particular.


So what was this non-prison incarceration that drove the rate so high long BEFORE anyone thought of "The War on Drugs"?

People instititutionalized for serious mental illness.


Clayton Cramer notes in one of his books (Amazon.com: My Brother Ron: A Personal and Social History of the Deinstitutionalization of the Mentally Ill eBook: Clayton E. Cramer: Books) that the system for committing and housing the mentally ill was effectively dismantled in the late 1960s thru the 1970s, and nothing was really put in its place to handle those who wouuld normally have been housed in the closing mental institutions (there were supposed to be outpatient places for them, but a: many did not get treated if no one forced them, and b: many of the treatment centers focused on things other than what the previously committed seriously ill people had). For a brief period of time, the total incarceration rate dropped radically, to about 260 or so (per 100K) then started climbing just as radically to nearly the same levels as before. As did crime rates, use of illegal drugs, and, I suspect, chronic homelessness.

The advent of new drugs to treat mental illness, combined with some theories on mainstreaming patients, some horror stories, a well timed book and movie Amazon.com: One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest: Jack Nicholson, Louise Fletcher, William Redfield, Milos Forman: Amazon Instant Video, pressure to find more money in state and federal budgets for "Great Society" efforts, activists leading movements for the right to be homeless (and government supported - anyone here old enough to remember Mitch Snyder?) led to putting long-term state supported mental institutions on the chopping block as a way to free up some funds and get rid of a perennial headache for legislators. But it ultimately meant there is a significant number of people who seriously need help, can't be seriously forced to receive help, and end up in various interactions with the catchall function: law enforcement. I'll bet BehindBlueIs and the other cops here have had quite a few repeated encounters with people who just ain't right. Most of them live at the jail. A few become infamous, like Seung-Hui Cho.

Overlay all that, and perhaps some other societal trends (say, an emphasis on personal liberty without a corresponding emphasis on personal responsibility), on top of your prison population graph, and that little "drug war starts here" arrow as the cause for the rate of imprisonment starts looking a bit overshadowed. Maybe a consequence instead of a cause.

And by the way, yes locking up ciminals for longer periods, thereby reducing their chance for recidivism, does in fact reduce crime. I do think there are far too many things that have been made illegal, and the number of criminal laws should be rolled back, and I don't think the Department of Education needs a SWAT unit, or even police officers at all, but I am very dubious that the ones about illegal drugs should bethe first ones to be cut, or that if they are, it will make any kind of dent whatsoever in crimes.

 

[churchmouse]

This is Marion County, they don't stay in long enough to count em.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^