Thoughts about decriminalizing drug possession

Recently Mayor Pete Buttigige said he was against criminalizing drug possession....

"New Hampshire Democratic debate moderator Monica Hernandez asked former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg what seemed like a tough question about an allegedly radical stance on drug decriminalization........."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5e3e2342c5b6f1f57f115411/amp

My thoughts are that while I see his point about mental problems of those with possession of drugs I worry that by basically excusing some people for going over the line society has drawn what's to stop those same people from just going over other lines (laws) society has drawn? Normally people don't just compartmentalize views on which laws can be ignored they tend to go out life based on feelings. If they feel they are justified in a act they will do it regardless of law. I also wonder of those with drug possession charges how many have other different criminal charges?

I worry that by taking extra care of those people government may be causing more harm to other members of society who can actually go about their life's without breaking societies rules.

 

Drug laws have never worked. One popular definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over and expecting different results. What evidence is there that what we have been doing since the 1930s has worked?

The war on drugs destroyed the inner cities. Drug laws make criminals out of children. The money is the reason for the violence. And the money results from the laws. The drugs themselves aren't that valuable.

Stop judging by what makes you feel superior and instead consider what works.

 

What does work then? Does Rehab?

Laws in my mind take away those who can't follow basic rules and I'd contend that if you'll break one your more likely to break more.

Because the bottom line in my mind and it has nothing to do with trying to feel superior is this, the governments job is to protect the functioning members of society. Allowing people who can't follow basic rules to co mingle with the actual functioning members of society is likely harmful to them.

 

Drugs laws don't work? Why is that? Is it because people still use them?

If that's the case no laws work because some people still break them

 

Granny says if dey decriminalize drug possession...

... there's gonna be a lotta drunks out onna road...

... when ever'body tryin' to get home.

 

The government has no constitutional authority to tell a citizen what they can and cannot infest. All drugs should be decriminalized. Just apply the same DUI laws we do with alcohol.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ps...-are-substance-abuse-and-violence-related?amp

Above is a link with studies that show correlation between drug and substance abuse and violent crimes

 

The idea of sending those with drug possession to a mandatory rehabilitation and counseling does make sense but only if that's the case for all crimes imo. Mental illness plays a large part in why people can't still in the guidelines that the government sets. Which is why I believe recidivism is so staggeringly high
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_9542312

So if that's the route one wants to take im fine with it but why wouldn't it be extended to ALL crimes not just drug possession?

Seems like we as a society need to make up our minds on what the goal is in jailing people, is it rehabilitation or is it punishment? All this is a fine balance that we have to walk between the individual's freedom vs the welling being and safety of others in our society.

 

In my mind it's not so much the law it's self it's more that the government sets a guideline and for whatever reason a person can't or won't follow it. Correct?

So my mind just goes to these questions, why can't they follow it and what other laws written will they ignore depending if they see fit? And if they do ignore other laws as well who does that effect and penalize the functioning members of society?

 

How so? Do you automatically assume someone who doesn't wear a seat belt will be prone to commit murder?

A law's existence does not inform us about its ethics nor its utility. You may for instance say that the law prohibiting the plowing of a field with an elephant is working great because nobody is doing it. But is that due to the law or due to the difficulty of procuring elephants and lack of people even being interested in using them for the task?

Likewise, it is not somehow ethically immoral to transport alcohol the day after prohibition is passed whereas it was not the day before. Doing so would ascribe morality to the law, which due to its changing nature, would make morality itself amorphous.

I am curious what you mean by this. If you change the law, thus redrawing the line, how therefore are people who posses drugs over the line?

 

I’m not sure I follow. The government currently dictates what a citizen can and can’t ingest. They have no constitutional authority to do so.

I still don’t follow. I’m arguing from a constitutional stand point.

if someone ignores a law and the consequence is it affecting another adversely )rape, robbery, murder etc) the government has a legitimate and constitutional authority to make a law which punished the offender. Ingesting a substance in and of itself does not harm another. Hence no authority to legislate it. Only what affects someone else. Like DUI laws.

 

How so? I draw that conclusion from recedivism rates

About your elephant plowing fields, again the functionality or practicality of a law is micro... The macro is society say don't do x and you still do x rationalizing why x is ok. Will you do the same with other laws as well? I will again point to recedivism rates here

 

The gov thinks they can tell you that you must wear a seat belt for your own safety- certainly, that puts only you as risk, but we fine you for failing to do so. With far more people dying from drug overdose than car wrecks, it would seem rational to make access to drugs without prescription illegal. Personally- If the government set up a program to provide the addicts drugs, we could cut the cartels off in short order because there would no longer be a profit. That not only has massive impact on crime and enforcement costs, it lets us know who the addicts are an gives us a way to help, and allow us to keep the drugs free of crap like fentanyl and dangerous additives. The last thing we can do- is surrender to it. That is unless you don't mind all of America becoming like the streets of San Francisco.

 

You speak of societies rules but it isnt society's rules , its law written by congress . I doubt our society would be locking people up for drugs

 

Simple Solution

1. Make illegal drugs - Automatic Death Penalty. Dead in less than 6 months. Hiding south of the border won't save your ass, as we'll get you there also.
2. Sell illegal drugs - Automatic Life in Prison. NO parole
3. Using illegal drugs - off to rehab for as long as it takes to break the addiction, if it takes forever it takes forever.

Draconian? Hell yes.

 

nra37922.....And you will be one of the first as I also would be also complaining about the excessive taxes required to keep people incarcerated. Personally I am a Democrat who does not want any drugs including marijuana legalized, I also think all ecigarettes should be permanently banned.I don't see any benefit legalizing any of these to our society.

 

Or we can just make them all worm food and save the cost of incarceration.

 

Legalize drugs but eliminate all government programs of every kind related to drugs.. EVERYTHING. Using drugs gives insurance companies legal rights to deny and and all claims. Health insurance can drop you and refuse to pay. Car insurance can drop you or refuse to pay . Your employer can fire you
States can take away or deny your driving .
privileges.
Yes a state should be able to deny you a drivers license if your a drug user.

 

All drug laws are unconstitutional and only serve to further enrich the legal and prison industries and criminal cartels at the expense of everyone, including and especially drug users. Take a lesson from a nation that has a rational drug policy, Portugal.

Under the 2001 decriminalization law, authored by Goulão, drug dealers are still sent to prison. But anyone caught with less than a 10-day supply of any drug — including heroin — gets mandatory medical treatment. No judge, no courtroom, no jail.

Instead they end up in a sparsely furnished, discreet, unmarked office in downtown Lisbon, for counseling with government sociologists, who decide whether to refer them to drug treatment centers.

"It's cheaper to treat people than to incarcerate them," says sociologist Nuno Capaz. "If I come across someone who wants my help, I'm in a much better position to provide it than a judge would ever be. Simple as that."

Capaz's team of 10 counselors handles all of Lisbon's roughly 2,500 drug cases a year. It may sound like a lot, but it's actually a 75 percent drop from the 1990s. Portugal's drug-induced death rate has plummeted to five times lower than the European Union average.

https://www.npr.org/sections/parall...use-is-treated-as-a-medical-issue-not-a-crime

 

I don't understand how recidivism is at all relevant to the determination of whether or not a given thing should or should not be legal. Is your core argument that if a given law has a high rate of repeated offenders, then that in and of itself is justification to keep the law?

 

Nor is lots of people breaking the law a reason to make it legal.

What makes no sense to me is people want to legalize drugs but want to make guns illegal.

Actually it does make sense. They simply hate guns and gun owners.

 

Exactly - the fact of whether or not a law is commonly broken is not informative as to whether or not that law should in fact be in place. I'm just perplexed as to the OP's focus on recidivism and why he seems to think it is relevant.

For guns - I think the constant focus of mass shootings has caused an irrational fear of them. I find it at least morally no different than drugs. If one is able to use them without endangering others, then there's no real justification to take away their rights.

 

infest...

... should be ingest.

 

What I'm saying is exactly what I stated. These laws are more than just stopping exactly what's written. The larger picture is the laws filter out people who cannot successfully function in our society. Your arguing about the specifics of the law when I'm saying that people who break 1 law using some justification will likely do it again whether it be with that specific law or another one. There in lies the rub of it, the balance between individual freedoms and the safety and well-being of the public at large.

I'm not necessarily against taking a rehabilitation view on these laws because I think there is some truth in the mental illness aspect BUT it seems unfair to just take that route with some crimes and not others. There are many studies that show mental illness and crime in general go hand and hand. I think that still won't save everyone and the reality probably is that there are some people just not fit to be in society.

 

We are not doing humanity any good by criminalizing drug abuse. At some point, we need to let natural selection kick in.