It's all connected, man. If we really want to help make society less crappy then we should treat drug abuse as a social disease, like alcoholism. Money would be far better spend on prevention and treatment than continuing the long-since-lost "war on drugs."
A big part of the poverty issue is birth rates higher than income can support, birth rates higher than replacement (which means the problem gets worse year after year). Serving hard time has minimal effect on that. Nice try though!
Users are very rarely targeted. Its the dealers that police typically enforce the drug laws on. Drug abuse could be categorized as a social disease, however, you'd have a hard time convincing me that selling drugs is a social disease however.
As for the not being able to find jobs....I'm going back to the welfare thing. In that video, they were complaining about how the jobs left the neighborhood, as if the world owed them jobs. It used to be people had to move to find jobs if there weren't jobs in their neighborhood. There were mass migrations all over the US. Its how many southern blacks found work following the civil war. Now many people have the attitude that if there is no job in their neighborhood, its not on them. If people's own survival was on their own shoulders, I guarantee they'd be going wherever the jobs were instead of living off of people's taxes who work.
Note how the nature of drug crime - bare possession - lessens the need for proof of "bad will" or intent to harm others or their interests; the so-called drug "criminal" need not have an iota of actual harmful intent in his heart, in order for her to be cast into the same pit as violent felons, and predators.
How fair is that?
Is this calculated to help the vulnerable?
Is not protection of the vulnerable the only justification for penal sanctions for drugs?
Is this not an abuse of the criminal law itself, which is directed in all other cases at the vicious, that is, the intent or recklessness of harm to others, and which thereby justifies its attack on an individual's liberty?
This unwarranted enlargement of the scope and reach of the criminal law brings the entire edifice of the Law into disrepute.
Unless "vicious" is taken to mean precisely "not to obey the commands of the State, no matter how arbitrary or unreasoned".
The un-American view, that what the King says, goes. Period. No discussion. Analogous to persecuting protestants, by the criminal law, in a catholic country....
A rather viciously circular definition of "vicious": "it is whatever the King says it is": and its off to prison with the disagreeable "subject"...in the US that used to be, "citizen".
And it is certainly not vicious to advocate the execution of those who traffic in harmless or beneficial and popular contraband, no sir, not in the Land of Liberty.
you are apparently missing the whole idea of the social contract that is government, except when it is useful for you to provide additional benefit to those who you happen to feel need it.
If a majority believed as you did, then drugs would be legal. They do not, so drugs are not.Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Only things outlined in the Constitution would be subject to a vote, all others would not. In a Republic, the majority would never be able to vote on an issue such as, should a bar owner be able to allow smoking in his establishment?
This would never be up for a vote in a Republic, but in a Democracy, everything is on the table.
If they are going to perpetuate the lie of Democracy, they should at least call it by its rightful name, Mobocracy!
It should never be possible for a group of people to decide what a property owner can do with his or her property, or what someone can put into their body,no matter how big the group or how good the cause.
I have noticed signs when driving down the road announcing that there will be a meeting of the people to decide if Wal-Mart should be allowed to build a store on land they legally purchased. I find this absurd! Who the hell should have the right to decide what the property owner can do with his property, except the property owner?
Not quite that simple. I grew up in poverty and never went the drug route. I knew the consequences and knew what I wanted to do with my life. It's a choice you make based off your goals, intentions and convictions. If you choose the easy route then you'll most likely pay the price. That price is usually poverty and in a lot of cases drugs are a part of this. I don't believe it has anything to do with being victimized by taking part in drugs and being jailed for it.A big part of the poverty issue has to do with the huge percentage of the lower class that are serving hard time for non-violent drug crimes instead of supporting themselves or their families. Then when they are eventually released they often find that nobody wants to hire convicted felons EXCEPT their old buddies in the drug trade.
Simple possession isn't a felony.
The laws are there.
Agree with it or not drugs are illegal and the penalties are open for everyone to know.
If you make the conscious decision to break the law that has nothing to do with 'the man' keeping you down. It isn't a surprise to someone that smokes a joint or deals crack what their choice can bring them.