if you want to know the roots of the current opioid epidemic look into Perdue pharmceuticals and how they manipulated the market when oxycontin was launched
You like pbs more than my daughter.
I didn't realize Felli even knew your daughter.
Anyone caught with or caught selling $10,000 or more of heroin, crack, meth should be charged with murder and, if convicted, get minimum 20 yrs. $100,000 or more gets ya executed.
-----We already tried it with the crack epidemic. It doesn't accomplish anything other than costing taxpayers many millions of dollars PER conviction and throwing away a human life.
We still have people in federal prison from 25 years ago who were small time crack dealers. (and federal prison costs us taxpayers something like 40k a year PER PRISONER)
Heck, there is a celebrated case of a father of four kids who sold three bags of weed to a friend who was an undercover agent, was convicted under "three strikes" and is serving 50 or 60 years of prison time.
Ridiculous.
Drug abuse is a really serious problem, but just becuase it's serious it doesn't mean it can be solved by throwing police at it and building huge prisons. If law enforcement was going to solve the nation's drug problem, it would have done it by now.
The fact that we have already had a war on drugs for 40 years and I can buy heroin over a smartphone, have it delivered in half an hour and the cost is less than a six-pack of beer -- that is pretty much proof to me that the law enforcement approach is not going to work. People who want heroin are going to get it, simple as that.
-----
Apparently you missed the part where I stated that major dealers get serious time, not someone with a dime bag. Addicts should get in house treatment, not jail time, including one that sold a dime bag to his roomy.
We never seriously fought any 'war on drugs.' Putting someone in jail for years for a nickle bag of marijuana is stupid. Fine them and let them go. But put the big boys away for a long time. And the really big dealers get executed. Even if it is their 'first offense.' And even if they are as young as sixteen. Some of these so-called kids are serious criminals and should be treated as such, especially since dealers use them because they now get very sentences when caught. Dealers deal in death....let them be treated as such.
Maybe we should include dr's unnecessarily prescribing opioid based painkillers? That is the root of this epidemic.
According to an expert at Iran’s Centre for Strategic Research, the death penalty has failed to reduce drug trafficking in the country.
There were three doctors in my hometown convicted of being a drug mill writing scripts for oxy to anyone that wanted it. They got 10-15 yrs, as they should have. Throw more of them in jail.
What is the rate of drug abuse in Iran? How does it compare to the US? Hard to say it has no affect since no one can predict the rate of drug abuse without those measures. Singapore executes drug dealers and they have very little problems there.
Iran. like many countries, has no control of its borders making it easy to smuggle in drugs. And they are on the pathway from A'stan and Pakistan where much of it is grown. If we controlled our borders we could seriously reduce the drug flow.....but we don't want to.http://www.narconon.org/drug-information/iran-heroin-drug-addiction.html
There are some analysts who describe Iran’s heroin addiction problem as the “worst in the world.” Estimates of the number of addicts vary widely - from one million to more than three million habitual drug users. A 2006 report estimated that 8 percent of the adult population was addicted to drugs.
We already tried it with the crack epidemic. It doesn't accomplish anything other than costing taxpayers many millions of dollars PER conviction and throwing away a human life.
We still have people in federal prison from 25 years ago who were small time crack dealers. (and federal prison costs us taxpayers something like 40k a year PER PRISONER)
Heck, there is a celebrated case of a father of four kids who sold three bags of weed to a friend who was an undercover agent, was convicted under "three strikes" and is serving 50 or 60 years of prison time.
Ridiculous.
Drug abuse is a really serious problem, but just becuase it's serious it doesn't mean it can be solved by throwing police at it and building huge prisons. If law enforcement was going to solve the nation's drug problem, it would have done it by now.
The fact that we have already had a war on drugs for 40 years and I can buy heroin over a smartphone, have it delivered in half an hour and the cost is less than a six-pack of beer -- that is pretty much proof to me that the law enforcement approach is not going to work. People who want heroin are going to get it, simple as that.
While I don't disagree what you don't know is whether or not the problem would be worse without the enforcement.
And please don't mention the Netherlands.
The issues are major. Enforcement is an issue, but not the only issue.
LdN
What about Portugal? They decriminalized all drugs 15 years ago.
No major increases in drug use
Reduced problematic and adolescent drug use
Fewer people arrested and incarcerated for drugs
More people receiving drug treatment
Reduced incidence of HIV/AIDS.
Reduced drug-induced deaths
Independent Research Conclusions
Nearly a decade and a half later, Portugal shows that
decriminalization does not inevitably lead to increases
in drug use, nor does it lead to a culture of
lawlessness. Indeed, none of the fears of critics have
come to pass.
Instead, law enforcement and the criminal justice
system function more efficiently, and Portugal has
been able to invest in improving the health and
wellbeing of people struggling with drug problems.
Community relations with the police have also
significantly improved.
https://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/DPA_Fact_Sheet_Portugal_Decriminalization_Feb2015.pdf
-----
Apparently you missed the part where I stated that major dealers get serious time, not someone with a dime bag. Addicts should get in house treatment, not jail time, including one that sold a dime bag to his roomy.
We never seriously fought any 'war on drugs.' Putting someone in jail for years for a nickle bag of marijuana is stupid. Fine them and let them go. But put the big boys away for a long time. And the really big dealers get executed. Even if it is their 'first offense.' And even if they are as young as sixteen. Some of these so-called kids are serious criminals and should be treated as such, especially since dealers use them because they now get very sentences when caught. Dealers deal in death....let them be treated as such.
We already tried it with the crack epidemic. It doesn't accomplish anything other than costing taxpayers many millions of dollars PER conviction and throwing away a human life.
We still have people in federal prison from 25 years ago who were small time crack dealers. (and federal prison costs us taxpayers something like 40k a year PER PRISONER)
Heck, there is a celebrated case of a father of four kids who sold three bags of weed to a friend who was an undercover agent, was convicted under "three strikes" and is serving 50 or 60 years of prison time.
Ridiculous.
Drug abuse is a really serious problem, but just becuase it's serious it doesn't mean it can be solved by throwing police at it and building huge prisons. If law enforcement was going to solve the nation's drug problem, it would have done it by now.
The fact that we have already had a war on drugs for 40 years and I can buy heroin over a smartphone, have it delivered in half an hour and the cost is less than a six-pack of beer -- that is pretty much proof to me that the law enforcement approach is not going to work. People who want heroin are going to get it, simple as that.
We already tried it with the crack epidemic. It doesn't accomplish anything other than costing taxpayers many millions of dollars PER conviction and throwing away a human life.
We still have people in federal prison from 25 years ago who were small time crack dealers. (and federal prison costs us taxpayers something like 40k a year PER PRISONER)
Heck, there is a celebrated case of a father of four kids who sold three bags of weed to a friend who was an undercover agent, was convicted under "three strikes" and is serving 50 or 60 years of prison time.
Ridiculous.
Drug abuse is a really serious problem, but just becuase it's serious it doesn't mean it can be solved by throwing police at it and building huge prisons. If law enforcement was going to solve the nation's drug problem, it would have done it by now.
The fact that we have already had a war on drugs for 40 years and I can buy heroin over a smartphone, have it delivered in half an hour and the cost is less than a six-pack of beer -- that is pretty much proof to me that the law enforcement approach is not going to work. People who want heroin are going to get it, simple as that.
The only people in prison who sold crack years ago and got stiff sentences were the ones that fell under Clinton's "three strikes you're out law". That means they had three felony convictions. This myth going around that someone is a victim for selling a rock of rack or an ounce of weed is bullshit!
Drug dealers are "violent people." They get welfare each month, free housing, utilities paid, free medical treatment, food stamps, and now, thanks to Obama, they get a free cell phone to help sell their drugs. Unless you have really been exposed to the everyday dealings of these scum bags and they way they are ruining our cities, don't comment unless you have the facts.
Look at the kid from Baltimore, Freddy Gray! How many times was he arrested for selling drugs? And you feel sorry for him!!! Did he ever do 20-25 years in prison? If he did, the city of Baltimore would have been a better place to live.
-----------1) You may say you only want to put "major dealers" in jail, but prosecutors and police take the ball and run with it. And major dealers are hard to catch -- so they catch the little ones. There are tens of thousands of small street dealers, mostly black men, taking up space in prison -- we pay $40,000 a year to feed and house them, and when they get out they will be sponging off everybody because they won't be able to get jobs.
Another example of stupid, well intentioned laws -- civil asset forfeiture -- they were supposed to be used to take the assets of drug kingpins, their private planes, their mansions etc. And what do you know, state troopers are using them in the midwest to stop cars, ask people if they're carrying cash, and just take it and make people sue to get it back. They make lots of money that way. But it's an example of how laws become twisted by police and prosecutors into something completely unrecognizable.
2) I don't know what you mean by "seriously" -- the country has spent close to $200 BILLION in DIRECT expenditures on the war on drugs, and the indirect costs in terms of lost earnings and ruined lives is much more than that. Iimagine what you could do with that money if you applied it to mental health and homelessness, or inner city public schools.
Maybe you could argue that $200 billion was worth the cost if it made us a sober, drug-free nation where nobody ever overdoses on heroin. But....just like prohibition, it failed TOTALLY. Drug use is as high as it ever was and drugs are more available than they have ever been. Prohibition didn't work, and Prohibition II isn't working either. Not that there weren't plenty of good intentions, but good intentions often do not make for good government.
This is just an area where people need to step back and try to think a little bit. Yes we have a problem with people killing themselves with drugs. But there are many problems that we can't solve by throwing money and police and jails at it. Every year people commit suicide because they're depressed. Every year spouses beat up spouses and sometimes kill them. People drink themselves to death. People kill themselves with heroin.
I think you have to get away from the idea that there will ever be a total solution to these things. Law enforcement is part of the answer but just a part, and it needs to be used smartly. And we need non-law-enforcement resources applied as well. But ultimately, if people want to kill themselves with substances, we as a society have to be realistic, we don't want them do to do it but some are going to. We can't solve every societal problem with government -- we just can't.
That is probably a good thingYou like pbs more than my daughter.
LOL!!! What about the ones slinging drugs in private schools? The suburb dealers slinging pills to your everyday middle class kids? They aren't carrying guns and beating people down. Only the inner city ones are the bad ones to you? You realize kids sling drugs to put them selves through college? Heroin is far from an inner city problem. I grew up in a pretty decent middle class area and the place is overrun with little rich white hiss slinging and using. What does Freddy Gray have to do with that?
News flash the war on drugs was an epic failure unless you own a prison. There is no silver bullet to stop drugs, but the mass jailing route hasn't been a success.
-----------
1 you set limits right in the law so it is distorted by DAs trying to build a record of convictions. Like I said, $10,000 grand and $100,000. ....cash and drug equivalent...or what ever is reasonable amounts to distinguish dealers.
2 I don't care what color they are, if they do the crime they do the time. Plea deal small dealers into cooperating.If they don't I won't feel sorry for them.
3 Asset forfeiture should only be done after conviction, not on a whim as it is now....really stupid.
4 $200 billion? Ha! We wasted six trillion on Great Society programs since LBJ was Pres. Reform our welfare/assistance programs so we aren't encouraging fatherless kids, teenage pregnancies, high school drop outs, and more. And i isn't just a black family issue as there are a lot of white folk sin poverty with the same issues. It would probably take ten years or more to repair the damage done but it pay off big time.
5 Seriously means really stopping drugs abuse. Serious time for dealers, Secure the border to stop the smuggling. Deal tougher with countries supplying the drugs. Sad, we won't because a sudden cessation of drug abuse would bankrupt the economies of multiple countries and cause chaos in the global financial system.
6 I don't ever expect to eliminate drug abuse but getting back to where is was 70 yrs ago would be nice.
So more prisons? Great as that has been such a huge success the last 30 years. Before you slap down the liberal card, guess again.
------Fortunately fewer and fewer people are listening to people like you. Your ideas are old tired and worthless.
------Anybody who still defends the War on Drugs approach simply needs to wake up. It didn't work. It failed in every conceivable way. Anybody who thinks you can arrest and imprison the drug problem away is just not living in a place of reality.
There are lots of people drawing a really good paycheck from the War on Drugs. Everybody from vice detectives clearing $160,000 a year with overtime to drug therapists and psychologists who make bank from convicted drug users who are ordered into treatment. Plus all those sheriffs and deputies who outfit their departments with really nice bling from asset forfeiture. Plus all those private prison contractors who get rich on taxpayer money. The Drug War is big government at its worst, but it is really good money for some people. So I understand those people trying to defend their paychecks.
But anybody who doesn't have a paycheck in it -- it should be obvious, the War on Drugs is a colossal failure. Probably the biggest domestic policy failure of our time. I don't think anybody could argue that drug enforcement has been ANY more successful than alcohol enforcement was in the 1920s. It has not made a dent in drug use, it has cost society a bundle, and it has only made the drug production and distribution business into a giant multinational industry that doesn't pay taxes. To say nothing of what drug enforcement has done to destabilize and create violence and ruin communities in Mexico and Central America.
You wouldn't need "more prisons" if you just handed out the appropriate sentences to start with. It's a freaking "revolving door" with these termites selling drugs, going to jail for a few months and back out on the street. Knock off parole system wherein a "career criminal" gets sentenced to 15 years and is back on he streets in 2 years!
---------Taking crack addicts and small-time dealers and throwing them in prison for decades does NOT make me safer
---------
I recommend you go back and re-read the thread. No one....not one....said anything about jailing addicts. Or even small dealers. Or marijuana users.
You are right on the money Spin Master. I keep hearing that individuals who sold an ounce of MJ end up with 20-25 years in prison. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our prisons are "full of repeat offenders" meaning at least 95% of them have committed felony crimes before. And, that is the crimes that they were arrested of convicted of.
If these maggots would have just served the sentence they originally received, 15-20 years, You can bet your ass there would not be an overflow problem with the need to build more prisons. And, your point about the Welfare system and the continuous birth out of wedlock, namely in our cities, continually turns these fatherless kids into hard core criminals, Gang Bangers who also start collecting welfare and think life is good by selling more drugs. Thanks to Obama, they now have a free cell phone to conduct their business.
These liberal politicians will do anything to just keep the votes they need to stay in office. I'm talking about politicians that are "liberal multi-millionaires" Polosi, Reid, the Clintons just made "145 million dollars" and Hillary is trying to pander to the black community by bringing up racism, and she thinks she is for the "middle class." Nothing could be further from the truth.
Boyer says that Vice Detectives are making 160K a year with over time from drug cases. Maybe some are, but I can speak right form the horses mouth that a lot of them don't come close to making that kind of money. But, "Politicians" serve six years in congress and get a life time pension of "15K" a month with every benefit you can think of, and they Do Not contribute one stinking dime to get that insane pension!!! Police, Fireman, etc. all contribute to their pensions, most of which are completely solvent until the "politicians" start raided this pensions systems, which Christy Whitman did in NJ, and now they are talking again, about a fiscal crisis with no money to pay state workers. Yet, they make sure the money is there for "Welfare, Food Stamps, Medical Care, etc. Those "Hand-Outs" can never be discontinued.