This makes me happy.

[Scat]

I like the premise behind the movie Demolition Man. You are cryogenically frozen for a length of time commiserate with your crime and while in a state of suspended animation your brain is re-programmed and you are taught a marketable skill.

The criminal is taken off the street, punished and re-programmed all at once. Of course the victim gets to break both knees of the perp prior to being frozen. They can heal while they sleep.

 

[NAOS]

I like the premise behind the movie Demolition Man. You are cryogenically frozen for a length of time commiserate with your crime and while in a state of suspended animation your brain is re-programmed and you are taught a marketable skill.

The criminal is taken off the street, punished and re-programmed all at once. Of course the victim gets to break both knees of the perp prior to being frozen. They can heal while they sleep.

that's racist

 

[Nate505]

Well that is all fine and dandy from a philosophical standpoint, but what about the gritty reality. Someone breaks into YOUR house, and kills YOUR family member, maybe with a knife or hammer, maybe in a really ugly way, maybe made them suffer first. Are you going to be happy when they don't really get punished, but rather rehabilitated? Then when they find a job in the cubicle or whatever next to yours, are you going to be happy having that office potluck with that individual since he is rehabilitated and all? For me I can honestly say I would hope that guy would never again see the light of day. It is entirely possible I am simply not as enlightened as you, but I would also wager than most American's would support my position in those circumstances.

Is that an important point though? The rights of the victims? Do some offenses simply require punishment and nothing more? I think yes, in some circumstances. I do not think Jeffrey Dahmer deserved to be rehabilitated. I think he needed to spend the rest of his life in prison (which he did). I believe the same applies to Ted Bundy. I think crimes of that magnitude needs a severe punishment. As I said before, not as a deterrant, but simply because he deserves to be punished. I think you can commit crimes severe enough that you forfeit your right to rehabilitation and a normal life.

I think those people need to be locked up for life too, but not as much for the punishment value but more for the safety value. Society has a rightful expectation of putting people in prison that are known to cause harm to society. That should be the first purpose of prison, which is why it's proper to lock up rapists and such (those who cause harm to others) but not proper to lock up addicts (who at worst are causing harm to themselves).

 

[Nate505]

I would be willing to bet that if you studied the statistics there is a fairly strong correlation between abuse of substances like crack and meth and unstable and dangerous home lives for children. Often there is an "x" that leads to behavior. In fact it has been pretty soundly shown that behaviors do not just happen, they happen as a result of some stimulus and reinforcement. Of course, as you said, it probably doesn't 100% of the time, simply because statistically (and quantumly) speaking a probability of 1.0 for anything is virtually non-existent (hmm, is it a 1.0 probability that there is no such thing as a 1.0 probability?). Now if you can identify the stimulus and the reinforcements for a behavior, and you can change them, then you can change the behavior. Spanking a kid is an attempt at this. So is arresting people for possession of drugs. The problem comes in the analysis of the reinforcers. If they are not immediate (as in very closely connected to the behavior) and certain (extremely likely to occur), then they are weak behavior modification reinforcers. The best ones are usually positive in nature (as perceived by the individual), immediate, and certain. Certain and immediate to the point of being built-in. If you got shocked every single time you touched an exposed wire, how many wires are you going to touch? If you got a happy feeling every time you ate a donut, how many donuts are you likely to eat? Every behavior has both positive and negative reinforcers (or nearly every) for any given individual. Using drugs is apparently an immediate positive - you get high - and the negative (go to jail, lose your job, etc.) are neither immediate, nor certain, and sometimes not even viewed as a negative by the user. This separates poison from drugs. The result of ingesting poison is immediate (usually) negative and certain. Of course, using "poisoning" to commit suicide shows that for some people the outcome is a positive rather than a negative.

I think the decision to make substances like that illegal, initially, was politically motivated. Really, imo, it should be motivated on a cost-benefit analysis (now we are getting into the realm of philosophical ethics). What is the cost to society of allowing all substances to be legal? What is the benefit? Which is greater? Remember, benefits can be avoidance of costs. So is avoiding the cost of the war on drugs better than the cost of the drug use itself?

Is the societal cost of wide-spread marijuana use exactly equal to the cost of meth use? I would wager the answer is no. Some substances are going to have such a strong influence on behaviors, or are so addicting, that the costs begin to get very high, very fast. And the benefits are surely negligible in any case - is there really a societal benefit to drug use other than cost avoidance?

So knowing that there is a high probability of drug use leading to destructive behaviors, and that there is no true benefit to society other than potential cost avoidance, it becomes an equation of whether everything should be illegal, or just the "worst" ones. So far our society has opted for the "worst" option, but then you get the discussion of where to draw that line. It is fairly arbitrary, and again political. This is seen in the fact that alcohol abuse results in more deaths every year than all other drug use combined, yet alcohol remains legal. Again, here is a case where society has determined that the costs of alcohol use (drunk driving deaths? broken marriages perhaps? etc.) are outweighed by the benefits like jobs (bars and alcohol companies) getting drunk and its perceived "fun-factor", etc. So in this case we do punish for the ancillary crime, but not the use of alcohol itself.

Even still it could be argued that meth use as widespread as alcohol use would be far more detrimental to society. Some drugs like meth, crack, heroin have a far greater impact on the individual. It is possible, in fact very common, to be an occasional drinker and not be an alcoholic. It is far less likely to be able to be a "casual" user of meth, or heroin. These have been shown to develop physical dependence in as few as 2 or 3 uses. Also, the possibility of overdose on alcohol to the point of death is relatively remote. For meth and heroin it is a constant possibility as it takes far less of those drugs to kill you than it does alcohol.

So an argument could be made to make certain substances illegal, completely independently of its perceived effect on children (in this case, that is just another cost to factor into the equation).


(the irony of this ramble is that I am a little high on percocet and muscle relaxants because I fell and hurt my back recently, so things come out in a mostly disconnected stream)

I don't doubt that children who live with parents who are crackheads and tweakers live an extremely unstable life. But I'm not convinced it is the drug use alone that is causing that instability. Most hard core drug addicts have an impressive range of mental issues and turn to the drugs to alleviate them.

I pretty much agree with everything else you said. On that note while I agree if meth use ever got to the point of alcohol use in this country it would be a lot worse (mostly because I've never heard of a low dose version of meth like there is for alcohol), I don't think hard drug use would ever get to the point of alcohol use in this country, even if it were legal. It's not culturally ingrained into society like booze is, and its perceived (and IMO actual) harm is much worse than a drug like pot is. I know if they made meth legal tomorrow I wouldn't touch it, and I'd wager that the vast majority of the country wouldn't. I don't smoke tobacco anymore because the health risks and the cost of addiction are not worth it, yet I can go out right now and get a carton of smokes if I wanted to.

That being said, I don't believe meth or cocaine or heroin should be legal, even though I will admit most of the arguments I have against prohibition in general can be applied towards them. They are just too far out there and man has tweaked the substances they are based off of into really powerful addicting things. I do believe all natural drugs, ie things that grow from plants, should be legal. And that position is probably fairly extreme.

 

[Scat]

that's racist

You're a tard.

 

[PearlWatson]

Is making prisoners work like this mother was doing a "hard punishment" or "causing some form of pain" because otherwise I haven't said anything that would merit your idea that I'm convinced of any such thing.

Well you kept on saying, "they have to be punished"... and I'd retort with... "well punishment does no good for anyone, there are better options that aren't so old testament" and then you'd say "well where are they being punished in that scenario" and then I'd say "well punishment isn't a good deterrent for preventing bad behavior, just look at the current prison system" and then you'd say "well what are they supposed to do in a prison other than punish"

I said you're delusional, because you cannot separate in your head the ideas of "incarceration" and "punishment"... and I'm just trying to advocate a more forward effective method.

LOL! That's not exactly how the conversations went.

You seemed to think the boys should be rewarded for mowing lawns. I pointed out that their mom was making them mow lawns because they didn't apply themselves in school.

You seem to think the penal system is a rehab center. I think it is supposed to be a penalty system for breaking societies laws...a time out.

You think the prison system doesn't work to rehab prisoners but I say it was never meant to be a rehab center.

I think you misunderstood my questions to Gameface. I didn't make one question as clear as I thought I had.

Gameface: First and foremost prison would be the last resort used against people who are dangerous, period. You cannot leave prison if you are still dangerous (sure, it's hard to verify). In my opinion the justification for imprisoning a person can only be to protect the innocent from their harm. The idea that we should cause criminals pain for the sole purpose of making them suffer is not valid, in my opinion.

What's the first resort?
Where in penal system do we cause criminals pain for any motivation?
What other reason is there to imprison someone other than “to protect the innocent from their harm?”

I don't see how removing criminals from society is inflicting pain.
I don't see how making prisoners or teenagers work is inflicting pain.

 

[PearlWatson]

I think those people need to be locked up for life too,

Why should we waste money housing and feeding people who will never reenter society.
Put them out of our misery the day after their sentence and be done with it.

 

[LogGrad98]

I don't doubt that children who live with parents who are crackheads and tweakers live an extremely unstable life. But I'm not convinced it is the drug use alone that is causing that instability. Most hard core drug addicts have an impressive range of mental issues and turn to the drugs to alleviate them.

Actually you would be surprised the number of drug addicts that come from more or less stable home lives. This is where my knowledge of the prison system comes into play.

My brother (who is 9 years older than me) was a hard-core drug addict for over 30 years (cocaine, crack, heroin, meth in the end). He was a smart, quiet, shy kid and got picked on at school by a few boys that were pretty rough. He got down over not having friends and turned to the one group that would befriend him, who also happened to be stoners. He found out he had a decided affinity for marijuana and it became the stereotypical gateway drug for him. When a friend offered him some cocaine he stole from his brother, my brother was hooked within a few uses. He told me he tried heroin the first time when he was 16, and was hooked almost immediately. He started stealing from everyone to feed his addictions. Finally, with no other recourse, he was given an ultimatum: get off the drugs or leave. He left.

Many people with no real underlying mental issues, per se, have a strong proclivity to addiction. My brother WAS an intelligent, caring, nice kid. Drugs messed that all up. We grew up in the standard suburban life in the upper-middle-class, so to speak. My dad owned his own business. We went to good schools. We went to church. There were no terrible things, traumas or what have you, in my brother's childhood that might push someone in that direction. He told me himself it all started one day because he was bored and worried about not fitting in, so he tried his first joint. It just cascaded from there.

I actually was called to testify against my brother after he violently attacked someone over drugs. I was going go find him since he had called and told us he was in town. I was 23, newly married, with a new baby boy, and my parents were worried he might get into trouble. He told me where he would be, at a park in downtown Ogden (a crappy place if ever there was one, especially at the time). As I drove up I watched him pull a knife on a guy and jump on him. He stabbed the guy 3 or 4 times, almost killing him. It was because the guy hadn't brought the drugs he had promised and tried to take my brother's money without giving him the goods. They had been arguing and yelling at each other pretty loudly apparently because someone had called the police. Literally right on my heels the police showed up. The intercepted me as I was running toward my brother and the other guy. I watched him get arrested and then nearly had to testify about it in court. He has been clean now for 3 years. He is 50.

We learned in helping him many many times with his problems that his case is more the norm than the exception. Many drug addicts start out that way. Someone bored or a little bit down turning to drugs to alleviate the boredom or depression or just to try something new or to impress someone. For some of them, it turns out like this. He spent 30 years in and out of prison and jail, drifting around the country. Occasionally coming home. Breaking my mom's heart. In fact when I was 17 I fought him and more or less beat him up to keep him out of the house when he wanted to steal things while my parents were away.

The prison system never did anything really to help him get clean. Really though, we were happy when he was in prison because we knew he was relatively safe. But we never imagined he would come out of it a better person. I wish we could change it in ways Joker and others have proposed. I wish he had had chance like that. It took a pretty horrific scenario to get him to give up drugs, and in the process he in effect lost his whole life. And I lost my chance to have a big brother.

 

[The-Joker]

LOL! That's not exactly how the conversations went.

You seemed to think the boys should be rewarded for mowing lawns. I pointed out that their mom was making them mow lawns because they didn't apply themselves in school.

False, I said that the mothers method wouldn't work because it was established on concepts that aren't psychologically viable.

You seem to think the penal system is a rehab center. I think it is supposed to be a penalty system for breaking societies laws...a time out.

I won't argue that... I just think it's absolutely moronic to put someone in timeout, let them go and expect them not to do it again. So I actually a prefer a timeoutty rehabby mixture thing. you know... for the kids...

You think the prison system doesn't work to rehab prisoners but I say it was never meant to be a rehab center.

It probably wasn't meant to be a rehab center when we established the laws we established 200 years ago. But we've come so much further, and we can help the people who break the law... rather than just keep them away from society... it's a net positive rather than a net neutral (or negative when you consider the costs).

Gameface: First and foremost prison would be the last resort used against people who are dangerous, period. You cannot leave prison if you are still dangerous (sure, it's hard to verify). In my opinion the justification for imprisoning a person can only be to protect the innocent from their harm. The idea that we should cause criminals pain for the sole purpose of making them suffer is not valid, in my opinion.

I won't respond to this, because I don't understand it... are these YOUR opinions... or is this some feeble third grade attempt to write a screenplay.

What's the first resort?
Where in penal system do we cause criminals pain for any motivation?
What other reason is there to imprison someone other than “to protect the innocent from their harm?”

You've failed to set context for the first two questions, so I'll just answer the third one.

To make sure they don't do the **** they did, again.

I don't see how removing criminals from society is inflicting pain.
I don't see how making prisoners or teenagers work is inflicting pain

I probably used pain in context as connotative for societal demerit or net negative. My bad, that you misinterpreted this as "owwwweee"


Yep, delusional. Definitely.

I mean, I tried to be nice, and not straight up call you out on how unadjusted your viewpoint is , hoping you would meet me in the middle somewhere... and we all could grow from this experience. But you are set in your ways, and it absolutely terrifies me that it just doesn't click with you that we have to help these people. If you've ever been involved in a criminal case, you would know that most judges feel the same way-- from what I've seen, most of the time if the defendant shows at least a facade of remorse for what they did, and the crime isn't absolutely heinous, the judge will give them rehabilitative measures such as AA, rehabilitative classes, required enrollment in school or vocation and community service instead of going to jail.

and before you try to check mate me on the community service remark (if you were alert enough to catch that it could contribute to your argument) I'll retort that community service is not a rehabilitative measure, or at least an effective one, it's a compensation measure usually in lieu of a fine or jail time.

 

[Scat]

Actually you would be surprised the number of drug addicts that come from more or less stable home lives. This is where my knowledge of the prison system comes into play.

My brother (who is 9 years older than me) was a hard-core drug addict for over 30 years (cocaine, crack, heroin, meth in the end). He was a smart, quiet, shy kid and got picked on at school by a few boys that were pretty rough. He got down over not having friends and turned to the one group that would befriend him, who also happened to be stoners. He found out he had a decided affinity for marijuana and it became the stereotypical gateway drug for him. When a friend offered him some cocaine he stole from his brother, my brother was hooked within a few uses. He told me he tried heroin the first time when he was 16, and was hooked almost immediately. He started stealing from everyone to feed his addictions. Finally, with no other recourse, he was given an ultimatum: get off the drugs or leave. He left.

Many people with no real underlying mental issues, per se, have a strong proclivity to addiction. My brother WAS an intelligent, caring, nice kid. Drugs messed that all up. We grew up in the standard suburban life in the upper-middle-class, so to speak. My dad owned his own business. We went to good schools. We went to church. There were no terrible things, traumas or what have you, in my brother's childhood that might push someone in that direction. He told me himself it all started one day because he was bored and worried about not fitting in, so he tried his first joint. It just cascaded from there.

I actually was called to testify against my brother after he violently attacked someone over drugs. I was going go find him since he had called and told us he was in town. I was 23, newly married, with a new baby boy, and my parents were worried he might get into trouble. He told me where he would be, at a park in downtown Ogden (a crappy place if ever there was one, especially at the time). As I drove up I watched him pull a knife on a guy and jump on him. He stabbed the guy 3 or 4 times, almost killing him. It was because the guy hadn't brought the drugs he had promised and tried to take my brother's money without giving him the goods. They had been arguing and yelling at each other pretty loudly apparently because someone had called the police. Literally right on my heels the police showed up. The intercepted me as I was running toward my brother and the other guy. I watched him get arrested and then nearly had to testify about it in court. He has been clean now for 3 years. He is 50.

We learned in helping him many many times with his problems that his case is more the norm than the exception. Many drug addicts start out that way. Someone bored or a little bit down turning to drugs to alleviate the boredom or depression or just to try something new or to impress someone. For some of them, it turns out like this. He spent 30 years in and out of prison and jail, drifting around the country. Occasionally coming home. Breaking my mom's heart. In fact when I was 17 I fought him and more or less beat him up to keep him out of the house when he wanted to steal things while my parents were away.

The prison system never did anything really to help him get clean. Really though, we were happy when he was in prison because we knew he was relatively safe. But we never imagined he would come out of it a better person. I wish we could change it in ways Joker and others have proposed. I wish he had had chance like that. It took a pretty horrific scenario to get him to give up drugs, and in the process he in effect lost his whole life. And I lost my chance to have a big brother.

I can relate to this as my younger brother went through a similar progression albeit for a shorter period of time and he never stabbed anyone... that I know of. Same thing though. Raised in a fairly normal household, parents never been divorced, no major traumas or upheaval, yada, yada, yada. And yes, he's a bright dude.

In my brother's case he just started hanging out with the wrong crowd. And yes, it all started with trying some pot because they were bored and had no money. I think one of the kids stole the pot from his dad. I think he was 14. Soon his little group of friends moved onto meth. He would take off on a Friday night and disappear for several days. He would show up at home after everyone had left for work or school so he wouldn't get yelled at and fall asleep in his room. He would often sleep for 3 days at a time because he hadn't slept for 5-6 days while he was tweakin'.

This went on for about 4 years. He decided to clean up his act and when he told his friends of his plans they actually beat him up. He ended up in the hospital for a couple of days with broken ribs and a collapsed lung. My brother is incredibly pig headed and holds a grudge like nobody I have ever met before. The beating was all it took for him to write of the group and leave the lifestyle behind. Ironically he now works in the Salt Lake County Sheriff's department as a jail guard. Go figure...

 

[The-Joker]

Actually you would be surprised the number of drug addicts that come from more or less stable home lives. This is where my knowledge of the prison system comes into play.

My brother (who is 9 years older than me) was a hard-core drug addict for over 30 years (cocaine, crack, heroin, meth in the end). He was a smart, quiet, shy kid and got picked on at school by a few boys that were pretty rough. He got down over not having friends and turned to the one group that would befriend him, who also happened to be stoners. He found out he had a decided affinity for marijuana and it became the stereotypical gateway drug for him. When a friend offered him some cocaine he stole from his brother, my brother was hooked within a few uses. He told me he tried heroin the first time when he was 16, and was hooked almost immediately. He started stealing from everyone to feed his addictions. Finally, with no other recourse, he was given an ultimatum: get off the drugs or leave. He left.

Many people with no real underlying mental issues, per se, have a strong proclivity to addiction. My brother WAS an intelligent, caring, nice kid. Drugs messed that all up. We grew up in the standard suburban life in the upper-middle-class, so to speak. My dad owned his own business. We went to good schools. We went to church. There were no terrible things, traumas or what have you, in my brother's childhood that might push someone in that direction. He told me himself it all started one day because he was bored and worried about not fitting in, so he tried his first joint. It just cascaded from there.

I actually was called to testify against my brother after he violently attacked someone over drugs. I was going go find him since he had called and told us he was in town. I was 23, newly married, with a new baby boy, and my parents were worried he might get into trouble. He told me where he would be, at a park in downtown Ogden (a crappy place if ever there was one, especially at the time). As I drove up I watched him pull a knife on a guy and jump on him. He stabbed the guy 3 or 4 times, almost killing him. It was because the guy hadn't brought the drugs he had promised and tried to take my brother's money without giving him the goods. They had been arguing and yelling at each other pretty loudly apparently because someone had called the police. Literally right on my heels the police showed up. The intercepted me as I was running toward my brother and the other guy. I watched him get arrested and then nearly had to testify about it in court. He has been clean now for 3 years. He is 50.

We learned in helping him many many times with his problems that his case is more the norm than the exception. Many drug addicts start out that way. Someone bored or a little bit down turning to drugs to alleviate the boredom or depression or just to try something new or to impress someone. For some of them, it turns out like this. He spent 30 years in and out of prison and jail, drifting around the country. Occasionally coming home. Breaking my mom's heart. In fact when I was 17 I fought him and more or less beat him up to keep him out of the house when he wanted to steal things while my parents were away.

The prison system never did anything really to help him get clean. Really though, we were happy when he was in prison because we knew he was relatively safe. But we never imagined he would come out of it a better person. I wish we could change it in ways Joker and others have proposed. I wish he had had chance like that. It took a pretty horrific scenario to get him to give up drugs, and in the process he in effect lost his whole life. And I lost my chance to have a big brother.

I mean you'd have to be an idiot to think that drugs don't screw people up.

But should the government have the right to protect people from themselves???

 

[PearlWatson]

Millsapa: You seemed to think the boys should be rewarded for mowing lawns. I pointed out that their mom was making them mow lawns because they didn't apply themselves in school.

Joker: False, I said that the mothers method wouldn't work because it was established on concepts that aren't psychologically viable.

You said this:

But I'm sure this will turn out well... the ole "Handwork warrants no reward whatsoever" generally produces good results, especially in relation to school work.

I don't understand what the teenagers are supposed to be rewarded for in this instance. They didn't do any "handwork" in school so they aren't being rewarded. Are they supposed to be rewarded for mowing the lawn even though they are being made to do it as a consequence of not applying themselves in school? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose?

I won't respond to this, because I don't understand it... are these YOUR opinions... or is this some feeble third grade attempt to write a screenplay.

Those were Gameface's remarks that I was responding to.

You've failed to set context for the first two questions, so I'll just answer the third one.

To make sure they don't do the **** they did, again.

The context was set with gameface's remarks that I was responding to.

I won't argue that... I just think it's absolutely moronic to put someone in timeout, let them go and expect them not to do it again. So I actually a prefer a timeoutty rehabby mixture thing. you know... for the kids...
It probably wasn't meant to be a rehab center when we established the laws we established 200 years ago. But we've come so much further, and we can help the people who break the law... rather than just keep them away from society... it's a net positive rather than a net neutral (or negative when you consider the costs).

I probably used pain in context as connotative for societal demerit or net negative. My bad, that you misinterpreted this as "owwwweee"

Yep, delusional. Definitely.

I mean, I tried to be nice, and not straight up call you out on how unadjusted your viewpoint is , hoping you would meet me in the middle somewhere... and we all could grow from this experience. But you are set in your ways, and it absolutely terrifies me that it just doesn't click with you that we have to help these people. If you've ever been involved in a criminal case, you would know that most judges feel the same way-- from what I've seen, most of the time if the defendant shows at least a facade of remorse for what they did, and the crime isn't absolutely heinous, the judge will give them rehabilitative measures such as AA, rehabilitative classes, required enrollment in school or vocation and community service instead of going to jail.

and before you try to check mate me on the community service remark (if you were alert enough to catch that it could contribute to your argument) I'll retort that community service is not a rehabilitative measure, or at least an effective one, it's a compensation measure usually in lieu of a fine or jail time.

As you pointed out we already have a rehab type thingy before they make it to prison. That's why they are in prison because none of that worked. I'm fine with leaving them in the prison once they have failed all those measures (so they don't do it again), except in the case of murder, rape, molestation/child abuse. They should be eliminated in those cases.

 

[NAOS]

You're a tard.

I was joking with you, you tardface skinhead

 

[PearlWatson]

I mean you'd have to be an idiot to think that drugs don't screw people up.

But should the government have the right to protect people from themselves???

Well you expect the government to rehab them afterwards.

 

[Scat]

that's racist

You're a tard.

I was joking with you, you tardface skinhead

I know you were joking, as was I with you, you liberal weenie.

 

[NAOS]

just off camera, printed on the t-shirt, it says: MARCUS LOVES CAULK

(another joke, you conservative douchewanger)

 

[Gameface]

Actually you would be surprised the number of drug addicts that come from more or less stable home lives. This is where my knowledge of the prison system comes into play.

My brother (who is 9 years older than me) was a hard-core drug addict for over 30 years (cocaine, crack, heroin, meth in the end). He was a smart, quiet, shy kid and got picked on at school by a few boys that were pretty rough. He got down over not having friends and turned to the one group that would befriend him, who also happened to be stoners. He found out he had a decided affinity for marijuana and it became the stereotypical gateway drug for him. When a friend offered him some cocaine he stole from his brother, my brother was hooked within a few uses. He told me he tried heroin the first time when he was 16, and was hooked almost immediately. He started stealing from everyone to feed his addictions. Finally, with no other recourse, he was given an ultimatum: get off the drugs or leave. He left.

Many people with no real underlying mental issues, per se, have a strong proclivity to addiction. My brother WAS an intelligent, caring, nice kid. Drugs messed that all up. We grew up in the standard suburban life in the upper-middle-class, so to speak. My dad owned his own business. We went to good schools. We went to church. There were no terrible things, traumas or what have you, in my brother's childhood that might push someone in that direction. He told me himself it all started one day because he was bored and worried about not fitting in, so he tried his first joint. It just cascaded from there.

I actually was called to testify against my brother after he violently attacked someone over drugs. I was going go find him since he had called and told us he was in town. I was 23, newly married, with a new baby boy, and my parents were worried he might get into trouble. He told me where he would be, at a park in downtown Ogden (a crappy place if ever there was one, especially at the time). As I drove up I watched him pull a knife on a guy and jump on him. He stabbed the guy 3 or 4 times, almost killing him. It was because the guy hadn't brought the drugs he had promised and tried to take my brother's money without giving him the goods. They had been arguing and yelling at each other pretty loudly apparently because someone had called the police. Literally right on my heels the police showed up. The intercepted me as I was running toward my brother and the other guy. I watched him get arrested and then nearly had to testify about it in court. He has been clean now for 3 years. He is 50.

We learned in helping him many many times with his problems that his case is more the norm than the exception. Many drug addicts start out that way. Someone bored or a little bit down turning to drugs to alleviate the boredom or depression or just to try something new or to impress someone. For some of them, it turns out like this. He spent 30 years in and out of prison and jail, drifting around the country. Occasionally coming home. Breaking my mom's heart. In fact when I was 17 I fought him and more or less beat him up to keep him out of the house when he wanted to steal things while my parents were away.

The prison system never did anything really to help him get clean. Really though, we were happy when he was in prison because we knew he was relatively safe. But we never imagined he would come out of it a better person. I wish we could change it in ways Joker and others have proposed. I wish he had had chance like that. It took a pretty horrific scenario to get him to give up drugs, and in the process he in effect lost his whole life. And I lost my chance to have a big brother.

Was his life made better or worse by having to face legal consequences on top of the consequences of drug use? Now of course, when he attacked someone over drugs he has to face legal consequences for that, as we all would no matter why we did it, but I'm sure there were times when he had court ordered drug tests, or got caught for simple possession, and it resulted in fines, jail time, or even prison. Was that a positive thing for him? Was it a positive thing for you or the rest of your family? Did it benefit society?

I'm not trying to single you out, but having had a close personal experience with someone who suffered greatly due to drug use, was prohibition helpful? I think we look at the horrors of hard drugs and say to ourselves that we must do something. I just question if criminalizing possession is a worthwhile part of the solution.

 

[LogGrad98]

Was his life made better or worse by having to face legal consequences on top of the consequences of drug use? Now of course, when he attacked someone over drugs he has to face legal consequences for that, as we all would no matter why we did it, but I'm sure there were times when he had court ordered drug tests, or got caught for simple possession, and it resulted in fines, jail time, or even prison. Was that a positive thing for him? Was it a positive thing for you or the rest of your family? Did it benefit society?

I'm not trying to single you out, but having had a close personal experience with someone who suffered greatly due to drug use, was prohibition helpful? I think we look at the horrors of hard drugs and say to ourselves that we must do something. I just question if criminalizing possession is a worthwhile part of the solution.

The big problem as I see it is that, drugs being legal or not, he couldn't hold down a job because he would be out of it for a week at a time and just not show up. So he stole, mostly petty theft, although there is this great story about him holding up a 7-11 with a replica pirate pistol. I think with some of the harder drugs this would become a big issue for many people, regardless of their legality.

To answer your comment more directly, I think criminalizing possession is not very helpful for the individual, especially how weak our laws are about it now. Yeah my brother did some time for possession, most of his hard time was for dealing in one way or another, and he did a 9-month stint when he blew up a meth-lab he was trying to start. He told me once that he sometimes welcomed time served for possession because it was "soft time" and gave him a chance to get things together again, then he went right back to it.

I think we need to follow more the example of Amsterdam. Possession and use is fine. Selling is highly regulated, and only "soft drugs" are legal. Keep the really hard stuff illegal (heroin, cocaine, crack, meth, etc.).

Imo, if we really want to stop the flow of drugs we need to dry up the demand (getting back to possession). We have already shown that going after the supply is a losing battle. Take one dealer off the street and the demand remains, so the other dealers raise prices and it isn't long before a couple more get the idea to fill the gap and you get 2 or 3 in place of that one. There was a good analysis of this in one of the Freakonomics books (I think the 2nd one). To me it makes sense. If you criminalize the possession and use of the hard drugs in a big way, not just some slap on the wrist or fine like it is now (my brother was caught with over a kilo of meth, but since they had no evidence he was trying to distribute it, he went into jail for 9 months for possession only), but minimum sentences, something truly deterrent, "hard time", I think you would see a shift of those people to the softer drugs (which should be made legal at the same time, otherwise we are still fighting a losing battle), and the hard drug problem would eventually whither away to a fraction of what it once was. Then you really would only have issues with crack heads and people who are truly messed up, instead of legions of people like my brother that let a bad decision wreck his life.

My brother told me this while he was drying out. He said he wished he had received stiffer penalties rather than a year or 2 here and there. He said a year in jail was just enough time to make new contacts, get past the initial symptoms of withdrawal, and for the "need" to get really deep. So he came out wanting it more and better prepared to get it.

Even better would have been some mandatory rehab and then relocation or job placement or something like that to keep them off it. Get them out of the situation.

 

[The-Joker]

The big problem as I see it is that, drugs being legal or not, he couldn't hold down a job because he would be out of it for a week at a time and just not show up. So he stole, mostly petty theft, although there is this great story about him holding up a 7-11 with a replica pirate pistol. I think with some of the harder drugs this would become a big issue for many people, regardless of their legality.

To answer your comment more directly, I think criminalizing possession is not very helpful for the individual, especially how weak our laws are about it now. Yeah my brother did some time for possession, most of his hard time was for dealing in one way or another, and he did a 9-month stint when he blew up a meth-lab he was trying to start. He told me once that he sometimes welcomed time served for possession because it was "soft time" and gave him a chance to get things together again, then he went right back to it.

I think we need to follow more the example of Amsterdam. Possession and use is fine. Selling is highly regulated, and only "soft drugs" are legal. Keep the really hard stuff illegal (heroin, cocaine, crack, meth, etc.).

Imo, if we really want to stop the flow of drugs we need to dry up the demand (getting back to possession). We have already shown that going after the supply is a losing battle. Take one dealer off the street and the demand remains, so the other dealers raise prices and it isn't long before a couple more get the idea to fill the gap and you get 2 or 3 in place of that one. There was a good analysis of this in one of the Freakonomics books (I think the 2nd one). To me it makes sense. If you criminalize the possession and use of the hard drugs in a big way, not just some slap on the wrist or fine like it is now (my brother was caught with over a kilo of meth, but since they had no evidence he was trying to distribute it, he went into jail for 9 months for possession only), but minimum sentences, something truly deterrent, "hard time", I think you would see a shift of those people to the softer drugs (which should be made legal at the same time, otherwise we are still fighting a losing battle), and the hard drug problem would eventually whither away to a fraction of what it once was. Then you really would only have issues with crack heads and people who are truly messed up, instead of legions of people like my brother that let a bad decision wreck his life.

My brother told me this while he was drying out. He said he wished he had received stiffer penalties rather than a year or 2 here and there. He said a year in jail was just enough time to make new contacts, get past the initial symptoms of withdrawal, and for the "need" to get really deep. So he came out wanting it more and better prepared to get it.

Even better would have been some mandatory rehab and then relocation or job placement or something like that to keep them off it. Get them out of the situation.

For real??? That's a damn Breaking Bad amount of meth... yo

He's lucky he didn't get the book thrown at him for that.

 

[LogGrad98]

For real??? That's a damn Breaking Bad amount of meth... yo

He's lucky he didn't get the book thrown at him for that.

He got lucky on 2 counts. One, it was before the real meth boom, so it was viewed somewhat differently. And two, his sentence got reduced due to, ready for this? Overcrowding. Even still I think his original sentence was 3 years or something like that, it got reduced to a year and he was out on probation in 9 months. Gotta love it.