The negative effects of the failed war on drugs are so numerous as to be uncountable.
On the other hand, a lot of corporations are making good money building and running prisons.
Dan
![]() | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
Discussion is locked
The negative effects of the failed war on drugs are so numerous as to be uncountable.
On the other hand, a lot of corporations are making good money building and running prisons.
Dan
Harshly prosecute and incarcerate people for nothing more than use. It lets you look "tough on crime" and allows your department to keep requesting more money for that "war".
The judges realize that more caseloads only increase their power, and they can ask for expansion of judgeships and a new courthouse. The prison system can demand new jails and those in charge justify increasing their spending and increase their administrative power by hiring more staff. Bail bondsmen make more money, lawyers make more money, contractors who support this expansion of power and need of increased facilities make more money.
Families are broken up and financially burdened beyond what is necessary. Taxpayers are told to "pony up" more money to help "fight this war on drugs". An ever growing legal bureacracy engorges itself on the lives of those based on drug usage without a requirement of a real crime being committed.
The drug dealers,the police departments, the public defenders offices, the bails bondsmen, the judiciary, the prisons, the social services all increase their power and dominance while the citizens are the real losers.
The War on Drugs is more responsible for creating a governmental monster than anything else in our society, and most of it is unneccessary.
From what I hear, many of the country's rank and file judges would prefer not to hear as many drug cases as they do and would greatly prefer not to have their hands tied by outrageous mandatory sentencing laws.
*sigh*
Dan
Unfortunately we don't seem to learn the lesson as time goes on.
Wasn't it just last year the U.S. Roman Catholics adopted a 'zero tolerance' policy of their own regarding sexual offenders?
First, the congressman who wrote the law should get busy and amend it appropriately, instead of photo-oping.
Second, laws should be written general enough that judges can, and be mandated, to apply the intent and spirit of the law. If judges can determine what the writers of the Constitution intended, they certainly should be able to interpret what any modern day group of faux lawmakers intended.
Another case of a one-size-fits-all law administered by a checklist.
From the Archives of Previous Administrations we find the 1998 Reauthorization of Higher Education Act. I'll give you 3 guesses as to who signed it into law and the first 2 don't count.
I wonder if all of the students that have been denied because of this could file a class action against the government for double jeopardy. It would seem to me that once you've paid your debt for a drug offense via a fine or time served that this would be an additional punishment not authorized by the court. I would especially think that anyone whose offense predated the signing of this law would have a case.
Hi, Clay.
C'mon, get real -- this was a bipartisan bill. had Clinton vetored it, the headlines at the conservative sites would have been "Clinton wants druggies in our schools!" Y'all claim *I* inject politics into everything? Sheesh!
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!