"Life" for LSD.....

[tommyIRISH23]

I appreciate your perspective and thank you for a reasoned counterpoint. Sadly these discussions usually quickly devolve. As to your points one and three, don't you think that many of the factors that drive these issues have actually been created by the War on Drugs?

As to point one, if drugs were legalized they would be taken out of the black market and distributed by a legitimate store/entity. Violence created over corners would be pointless, at least in regards to drug turf. Turf wars would thus be more akin to CVS vs. Duane Reed.

As to point three, I think that a system that devoted its resources towards education and rehabilitation would be more successful than punitive measures, in particular with respect to drug users. I think that locking up drug users is probably counter-productive in that it criminalizes a serious health issue, which is of course on them...It is their fault that they went down that road. Nonetheless, just locking up a drug addict merely puts them into an environment that is not at all conducive to their recovery from addiction.

No problem. I appreciate the civil discussion. To your point about these issues being created by the war on drugs. First, the inner city violence May or may not decline. Probably would in my opinion. But the drug dealers would just move on to the next racket. Where's there's poverty there will be violence. Now, legalizing drugs (not marijuana) like heroin would not stop the cursed course these poor souls and their families go through. Look at the cause/effect of legalizing heroin and cocaine. Opiates in particular are highly addictive. If heroin were available at cvs and accessible; the addictive nature of the drug would take harmless adolescent experimentation and turn it into a life destroying "illness". Heroin addicts can't hold jobs not bc the drugs illegal but bc of what the drug does to someone. An example is prescription painkiller which are supposedly "regulated" and legal. Prescription painkillers have caused an explosion in heroin addiction spanning to socioeconomic spectrum. No moral person who understands heroin addiction from experience can argue that it should be legal. Trying it 2-3-4 times will ruin your life.


Your last point about the system. I can't really comment on any state outside of mine but the new trend in nj where I live is rehab for addicts. They'll get a few chances to voluntarily go or go on court order while still living in the community but when they screw up they'll get incarceration where they'll be medicated, counseled, and hopefully recovered. Everyone says "treat it" or medicalize drug addiction but the problem is that most ppl don't understand is that there's no cure. There's no sure-fire way to treat addiction and some ppl just can't overcome the need to use. It's not as simple as throwing money and research at the problem and trusting everything will be ok. Some say addiction is a disease and it should be treated that way....we'll cancer patients don't steal from their families, neglect their kids and rob ppl to go buy more cancer to inject into their bodies. It's a total different anima. Ask any heroin addict or their family about how much resources have been expensed on their recovery only to fail. It's not lack of resources but rather lack of science.

 

[Irish#1]

I'm with TommyIrish on this. I have to assume he's telling the truth and being smack in the middle of this issue, his experiences make him a far more knowledgeable person than the rest of us. As far as the guy not knowing he might get life, I don't agree with. I have to believe his PO, attorney, the judge or someone else mentioned it somewhere along the line that the next arrest is going to cost him. Dealers use drugs. My suspicion is that he was probably getting high on a regular basis and thus clouded his ability to think through his consequences. Regardless, he should have received a sentence, just not life. Just MOO.

 

[RDU Irish]

US Incarceration Rates Are Out of Control | Discourse.net

Some would say the war on drugs is successful based on this link.

Highest incarceration rate in the world. 4x increase in the number of people in jail versus 30 years ago (3x if you adjust for population increase).

The US has 5% of the world population but accounts for 25% of global prisoners.

Damn expensive too. Applying a little bit of economic common sense to the perceived "problems" we are incarcerating would go a long way.

 

[Emcee77]

I find it unlikely that he was properly informed because the first two times he was dealing with a regular "court date" in-and-out judge who deals only with California state law. Same with his probation officer, who probably only advised him on ramifications of California state law. But when he got picked up for the third time, BANG, federal department of justice supersedes on the normal California criminal justice system. Now he's in front of a federal judge dealing with mandatory federal sentencing guidelines.

But California has a similar "three strikes" recidivism enhancement, doesn't it? I'm not gonna look it up now but I know they at least used to have something like that. IIRC, it was at issue in one of the U.S. Supreme Court cases on recidivism enhancements. So if he had two convictions in California, he likely was warned upon sentencing on the second that a third would carry a life sentence ... not necessarily, but very likely.

 

[greyhammer90]

But California has a similar "three strikes" recidivism enhancement, doesn't it? I'm not gonna look it up now but I know they at least used to have something like that. IIRC, it was at issue in one of the U.S. Supreme Court cases on recidivism enhancements. So if he had two convictions in California, he likely was warned upon sentencing on the second that a third would carry a life sentence ... not necessarily, but very likely.

If that's true then I agree it's likely he was warned. Admittedly I'm not familiar with California state law. Was the California sentencing structure also for life after two probationary periods as well though? If so, that's amazing.

 

[kmoose]

I find it unlikely that he was properly informed because the first two times he was dealing with a regular "court date" in-and-out judge who deals only with California state law. Same with his probation officer, who probably only advised him on ramifications of California state law. But when he got picked up for the third time, BANG, federal department of justice supersedes on the normal California criminal justice system. Now he's in front of a federal judge dealing with mandatory federal sentencing guidelines.

Yeah, because hardly anyone in the world, let alone the US, let alone California, has ever heard of "Three Strike" Laws..........

 

[Emcee77]

If that's true then I agree it's likely he was warned. Admittedly I'm not familiar with California state law. Was the California sentencing structure also for life after two probationary periods as well though? If so, that's amazing.

I'm no expert myself. This is the case I was thinking of though: Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003)

Not sure how closely this fits the case of the Deadhead we are talking about. Don't know any details of his first two offenses. And I think there's a companion case, but I've never read that one.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Yeah, because hardly anyone in the world, let alone the US, let alone California, has ever heard of "Three Strike" Laws..........

I don't care if he knew it or not so much as the three strike laws are abhorrent.

 

[RDU Irish]

I'm a detective in one of the worst, if not the worst, cities in the country. I don't know about the LSD guys case but I do know a lot about drug distributing organizations, sentencing, and what REALLY destroys families with drug addicts.

1. You're missing the totality of what you read when you see a individual sentenced to 15-20 years for distribution. (Which rarely happens btw most 1-2nd offenders get months). A heroin, cocaine, crack, meth...etc distribution ring (even marijuana) almost always has homicides and other forms of sickening violence associated with it. Territory is at a premium and a lot of people die for it. Now the hard part in investigating is pinning bodies on 1 person with full proof evidence to convict. So the state uses drug sentencing laws as a way to stop the reign of terror that comes down on communities from these organizations.

2. Min sentencing requirements offer crucial leverage to compel cooperation. Without it my job becomes much more difficult.

3. Drug sentencing does not destroy families of drug addicts. What destroys families is the stealing, lying, failing out of rehab, disappearing for weeks at a time with the family not knowing if their loved one is dead or alive, and the cost that bankrupts families trying to get the addict help over the countless times he quits rehab, stops taking his medicine, and relapses. In fact, from my experience, most families prefer their addicted love one in jail bc they know they're alive and (supposedly) clean. Addicts have to want to get clean and by want they have to do more than talk about it. There's countless low cost programs available for addicts to help them and they quit the program. Sadly, after these battles that last 5-10-15 years the families are actually relieved and at peace bc they can move forward with their lives.

I know my opinion is not politically correct but the academics who have been in college for 20+ years need to get into the gutter and really open their eyes to what the issues actually are. Stats can be quoted endlessly but everyday I see a reality that doesn't quite add up to what the studies, stats...etc would like you to believe . Btw when I respectfully present my experience to my graduate professors I'm told that I'm either not qualified to have an opinion bc I don't have a PhD or I'm just wrong and told that My experiences don't happen. Meanwhile the professor who has spent 20 years doin nothing but teaching at a cushy elite college campus is right?

Sorry for my rant but I believe that in order to fix the problem it has to be correctly understood

Why can't the lessons of prohibition be applied to the war on drugs? Legalize and regulate and the criminal element will have to find another meal ticket. Prohibition was ineffective and cost prohibitive to enforce. Economically moronic. Scale is the only difference b/w alcohol and various drugs up for discussion here. Much easier to oppress the smaller minorities that represent various drug users.

Your post is great, I just think, fundamentally, people are f-ed up and will make bad decisions. Incarcerating people for being stupid and irresponsible is expensive and counter productive.