# What kind of society.... **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 4, 2011, 9:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-kind-of-society/591443 "2011-08-04T09:12:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2011, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-kind-of-society/591443/101 "2011-08-06T07:32:28Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > The report (prepared by the US Attorney General I might remind you, in an effort to demonstrate the rapid growth of the very prison population we are discussing) spells out that their definition of “low level drug offender” for the purposes of the study excludes other criminal activity, not just violent activity. Regardless of what the report said, what you said is that “if you… leave [the stipulation] at only ‘non-violent’ then the numbers [of] people sitting in prison cells for 5-7 years for basically nothing more than being addicts” That is what you said. Never mind the report. You said that if the criterion is only “only ‘non-violent’” then you are dealing with people who are “basically nothing more than being addicts.” I reject that entirely. A burglar who breaks into a woman’s bedroom in the middle of the night is not in any sense guilty of “nothing more than being addict”. > [@](#): > > The 12,727 prisoners defined by the strictest definition of “low level” in prison in 1994 were not, by definition, contributing to any of the costs to society that you mention. They were just addicts. They are also only 25% of your set of “offenders [that] have… only ‘non-violent’ [histories]” and so are "sitting in prison… for basically nothing more than being addicts. As such they are hardly representative of the population you described. 75% of your offenders that have only ‘non-violent’ histories \*were \*contributing to the costs to society that I mentioned. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2011, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-kind-of-society/591443/102 "2011-08-06T07:34:33Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > There are more possibilities than the outright legalization of all controlled substances or total criminalization of them all. In an imaginary world where full drug legalization might happen, we could also imagine that drugs could only be purchased legally under medical supervision including counseling and rehab if desired, all paid for by the billions of dollars of additional tax revenues that could be imposed on the sellers of such drugs. At the same time as calculating whatever ramifications that had on our prison populations, we would have to reduce from the world’s count of violent crimes all the crimes committed by organized drug gangs, mafia, basic street level thugs, etc. as part of the current illegal distribution system which would be eliminated by such a bold move almost overnight. That is a lot of the “other” prisoners that do fall under the violent and dangerous category completely out of a job and source of income. I said I support legalization so obviously I see benefits to it. I agree that it would greatly reduce both street crime and organized crime - two major benefits. I also view it as a personal liberty issue even if it didn’t have any other benefits. But I’m also pointing out that there would be costs and we’d be foolish to ignore those. ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2011, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-kind-of-society/591443/103 "2011-08-06T07:42:04Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Regardless of what the report said, what you said is that “if you… leave [the stipulation] at only ‘non-violent’ then the numbers [of] people sitting in prison cells for 5-7 years for basically nothing more than being addicts” > > That is what you said. Never mind the report. You said that if the criterion is only “only ‘non-violent’” then you are dealing with people who are “basically nothing more than being addicts.” My post simply included that for completeness but the argument can be made by only the first condition: no past criminal history, no violence, no other crime associated with the time they are serving in prison. That number (in 1994) was 12,727. Make of it what you will in regard to the impact on courts, prison population, and the lives of the addicts who comprise that number. The rest of your argument is nitpicking one part of a larger point that has already soundly defeated your original position on this question, and I’m not going to play anymore. The report stands by itself as an argument (made by our own justice system) to stop mandatory prison sentencing for what they defined to be small time drug offenders. That definition does not include any of the examples you are arguing about now. It is irrelevant what you think about robbers breaking into teenage girls rooms, when the argument is that there were over 12 thousand prisoners not guilty of anything like that, as defined by the very justice system that put them away for it. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2011, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-kind-of-society/591443/104 "2011-08-06T07:51:03Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > In an imaginary world where full drug legalization might happen, we could also imagine that drugs could only be purchased legally under medical supervision including counseling and rehab if desired, all paid for by the billions of dollars of additional tax revenues that could be imposed on the sellers of such drugs. Which would be fantastic if drug users were all able to support themselves and their habit through legitimate work. However the very nature of hard drugs means that many (probably most) users can not do so for the course of their addiction. As such the taxes are simply being paid for by welfare dollars from the taxpayer. So it’s still a major net drain on the economy. > [@](#): > > That is a lot of the “other” prisoners that do fall under the violent and dangerous category completely out of a job and source of income. Which could be a good thing, or a bad thing. Don’t get me wrong here, if I were Emperor I would decriminalise all drugs tomorrow. However I also would not tolerate drug use an excuse for being on welfare or for committing crimes, since doing so wouldn’t actually address the problem of drugs as a drain on society. But if the taxes on heroin were high enough to cover all the furture costs of heroin usage , including both medical and unemployment. And if people were able to afford to buy heroin from legitimate income sources, then by all means it should be legal. It costs me nothing so it’s none of my business. However I am skeptical that this would be possible. It is possible with nicotine because people with nicotine addiction are no less productive for, on average, 30 years before they start to chew up the costs of the additional taxes they paid over that period. In contrast, people with addiction to most hard drugs start to become measurably less productive much faster. Because of this, I suspect that the cost of a hit of heroin would be higher under a legal, user pays system than it is at the moment. But IMO this shouldn’t stop us form legalising it. It just means that we need to be very careful with any assumptions that it would reduce crime or in any other way decrease the cost to society. ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2011, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-kind-of-society/591443/105 "2011-08-06T07:56:26Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I said I support legalization so obviously I see benefits to it. I agree that it would greatly reduce both street crime and organized crime - two major benefits. I also view it as a personal liberty issue even if it didn’t have any other benefits. But I’m also pointing out that there would be costs and we’d be foolish to ignore those. That’s why it could only be in an imaginary example. In the real world the damage to society with free access to all drugs would be catastrophic because some of their lethal effects could happen in mere minutes after the store opened, without any hope that optional counseling and rehab would help curb their effects. Some drugs should probably be legalized or at least controlled in a non criminal way, but either way long, mandatory prison sentences for drug use and possession do nothing to curb addiction it just creates a cycle of addicts becoming repeat offender and getting longer and longer sentences each time. It does contribute to prison overpopulation and setting those addicts back further in their lives, reducing their chances of long term recovery even more. This has been widely recognized for a long time, and generally penalties have made big distinctions between “users” and “dealers” of drugs. But with mandatory sentencing, 3 strikes type rules, ‘zero tolerance laws’, etc. imposed during the 1980s, small time users can and still do get slapped with ridiculously long prison sentences that don’t at all match the crime. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2011, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-kind-of-society/591443/106 "2011-08-06T07:57:30Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > My post simply included that for completeness but the argument can be made by only the first condition: Nonetheless you chose not to argue it on that condition. You chose to argue it on the condition of “only non-violent”. And that argument has now been completely demolished. > [@](#): > > The rest of your argument is nitpicking one part of a larger point that has already soundly defeated your original position on this question, and I’m not going to play anymore. Because you can’t respond. Far from nitpicking, it adresses the core of your argument and demolishes it entirely. > [@](#): > > The report stands by itself as an argument (made by our own justice system) to stop mandatory prison sentencing for what they defined to be small time drug offenders. No. it doesn’t. I have just thoroughly demolished the argument you tried to make from it. But thanks for playing. ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2011, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-kind-of-society/591443/107 "2011-08-06T08:08:10Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Which would be fantastic if drug users were all able to support themselves and their habit through legitimate work. However the very nature of hard drugs means that many (probably most) users can not do so for the course of their addiction. As such the taxes are simply being paid for by welfare dollars from the taxpayer. So it’s still a major net drain on the economy. Except drugs are only so expensive because they are illegal. I don’t agree heroin would be more expensive if it were truly legal - as in poppy fields all over Virginia instead of or in addition to Tobacco, and giant multinational corporations competing to sell heroin packs at every 7-11. It would be dirt cheap. Even with a huge tax levied on them, the base cost of the chemicals and plants involved in the production of most drugs is negligible, nothing. I think most would be much less expensive. And as long as its an imaginary world there would be money set aside from the taxes imposed on the sales to provide programs for addicts who couldn’t afford the drugs. They would get a free supply but only under some condition like counseling or work-for-drugs programs or somesuch. ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2011, 8:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-kind-of-society/591443/108 "2011-08-06T08:15:38Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Nonetheless you chose not to argue it on that condition. You chose to argue it on the condition of “only non-violent”. And that argument has now been completely demolished. > > Because you can’t respond. > > Far from nitpicking, it adresses the core of your argument and demolishes it entirely. > No. it doesn’t. I have just thoroughly demolished the argument you tried to make from it. But thanks for playing. You made the incorrect and irrelevant point that there is no way to measure ‘low level’ drug crimes as they impact the prison population because they are all basically intertwined with other crimes and criminal behavior. I showed you a study that did, right from the source - the jailers, demonstrate there are tens of thousands of addicts in prison who A) committed no additional crime beyond the drug offense, B) had no previous criminal history, and C) no violence was associated with their drug offense. Period. That number is all you need to worry your pretty little head about in terms of how it defeated your incorrect argument. The rest is your typical nitpicking. It’s not that I couldn’t continue responding to it all night, it’s just that I don’t want to. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2011, 8:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-kind-of-society/591443/109 "2011-08-06T08:40:02Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > You made the incorrect and irrelevant point that there is no way to measure ‘low level’ drug crimes as they impact the prison population because they are all basically intertwined with other crimes and criminal behavior. I never said anything even remotely like that. > [@](#): > > I showed you a study that did, right from the source - the jailers, demonstrate there are tens of thousands of addicts in prison who A) committed no additional crime beyond the drug offense, B) had no previous criminal history, and C) no violence was associated with their drug offense. A point that nobody ever disputed. You then went on to claim that non-violent offenders who break into women;s rooms in the middle of the night are guilty of nothing more than being addicts A claim that I have since proven to be utter horseshit. Multiple times. Yet you still argue that to be the case. Sad really. That’s your entire argument, and it has been totally trashed. 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2011, 8:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-kind-of-society/591443/110 "2011-08-06T08:54:45Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > I never said anything even remotely like that. You saying that: > [@Blake](#): > > It’s interesting the lengths that page goes to hide the facts. Nowhere does it actually tell us how many people are in jail solely because of drugs charges. It goes on at great lengths about the number of people convicted of drugs crimes, but makes no mention of how many of these were convicted of multiple crimes. > > So while 25% of prisoners have been sentenced in part for drug crimes, we have no idea how many would have been sentenced even if drugs were legal. My reply via cite: > [@](#): > > If we further restricted the population to those offenders with zero criminal history points - according to U.S. Sentencing Commission rules, there were 12,727 Federal prisoners who could be considered low-level drug law violators. They constituted 28.2 percent of all drug offenders in the prison system and 16.6 percent of all sentenced prisoners. > [@](#): > > You then went on to claim that non-violent offenders who break into women;s rooms in the middle of the night are guilty of nothing more than being addicts > > A claim that I have since proven to be utter horseshit. Multiple times. You are the only person in this thread who has used that idiotic analogy. > [@](#): > > Yet you still argue that to be the case. No, I don’t. You created the strawman. Now you’re choosing to nitpick about it as if I would be stupid enough to make such an analogy. The readers of this thread can evaluate the positions for what they are worth with no further input needed from me. Nite, **Blake** ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2011, 9:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-kind-of-society/591443/111 "2011-08-06T09:04:58Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > From the link provided byt Crazyhorse, people incrcerated for drugs who have no other criminal history amount to just 28% of drug offenders in prison. So rather than “decriminalising” 25% of prisoners, decriminalising drugs would reduce the number of criminals by just 8% at most. > Nothing more than being addicts? Your list includes burglars, frauds, armed robbers, extortionists and many, many other criminals who committed crimes with “no violence”… > > While you may think it’s that a burglar who breaks into a teenage girl’s bedroom in the middle of the night is guilty of " basically nothing more than being [an] addict", I can assure you, she won’t feel the same way. > > These people are not a minor problem in US society. These people cost society vast amounts. I’ve seen reputable analyses that indicate that through actual thefts, inflated insurance, expenditure on security, loss of flexibility due to fear and so forth these “non-violent” offenders chew up 10-30% of GDP. That is a staggering amount. > > And lest you think the losses are “only” monetary, consider that these wasted resources could otherwise have gone to improvements in health care, solving or reducing violent crime, improvements in safety and so forth. Then we factor in people who suffer health problems because they do not feel safe to exercise for fear of being mugged or having their car broken into while parked at the gym, or because gym memberships are expensive because of the costs of security to avoid these problems > > The idea that people who are commit “non-violent” crimes are being jailed for “basically nothing more than being addicts” is a gross misrepresentation. They are being jailed for committing serious crimes that are a massive economic, psychological and health lliability for society. > > These people are in no sense “just addicts”. You don’t read too damn well, do you? Here are the relevant sections from the citation establsihing the non-violent to no-prior-record charateristics of the prisoners, who constitute a lot more than your “8% at most” of all Federal prisoners: (emphasis added) > [@](#): > > A substantial number of drug law violators sentenced to incarceration in Bureau of Prisons custody can be classified as “low-level”. **Using one set of criteria which limited offenders to no current or prior violence in their records, no involvement in sophisticated criminal activity and no prior commitment** , there were 16,316 Federal prisoners who could be considered low-level drug law violators. They constituted 36.1 percent of all drug law offenders in the prison system and **21.2 percent of the total sentenced Federal prison population.** > > **If we further restricted the population to those offenders with zero criminal history points** - according to U.S. Sentencing Commission rules, there were 12,727 Federal prisoners who could be considered low-level drug law violators. They constituted 28.2 percent of all drug offenders in the prison system and \*\*16.6 percent of all sentenced prisoners. \*\* US drug sentencing laws are a complete travesty and would be even if no other crimes were ever committed. Unfortunately there are 100s of thousands of truly violent and predatory criminals who might be out of commission much longer if so many resources were not wasted on these low-level drug offenders. Unfortunately the yahoo element of society, well represented in this thread by our Mr. Blake, has both major parties so intimidated that there are no prospects for much-needed sentencing reform. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2011, 10:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-kind-of-society/591443/112 "2011-08-06T10:24:08Z")
[quote=“PrettyVacant, post:1, topic:591443”] [LIST] [li]Imprisons currently more people than any other country in history?[/li][/quote] A large wealthy country with a large underclass. Duh. > [@](#): > > But beyond that, does this make any sense at all on a simple wasted lives, humanitarian level? Sure. Better to waste many years of a criminal’s life than to let him out to screw up other peoples’ lives. ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2011, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-kind-of-society/591443/113 "2011-08-06T11:58:34Z")
\*\*PrettyVacant \*\* --you seem to have been arguing this out inside your own head for quite some time. Problem with that is, you _always_ win those arguments, because you _always_ agree with yourself. Most US murders take place inside our 6 or 7 largest cities, more that 2/3s, if I remember properly, & far out of proprtion to the size of those cities. America has had a problem administering our biggest cities since the Revolution. Is our problem an Urban one, rather than a minoprity issue? Further, many of those in prison could better be described as “immigrants” (legal or not). And disproportionate numbers of immigrants in prison populations seems to exist worldwide. Is our problem an _acclimitization problem_, rather than a minority issue? Finally **PrettyVacant** , it is always important to remember that becoming _shriller_ does not make you _righter_. ---
**Author:** ![PrettyVacant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/49beb7/32.png) [@PrettyVacant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PrettyVacant)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2011, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-kind-of-society/591443/114 "2011-08-06T16:06:54Z")
Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor - Can I encourage you to re-read your post (above) and after every single sentence consider how appropriate a response beginning ‘You patronising turd’ seems? The developing debate is interesting although, initially, I was intersted in why the USA has 10 times more crimianals than comparably affluent European countries… ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2011, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-kind-of-society/591443/115 "2011-08-06T16:17:46Z")
> [@PrettyVacant](#): > > Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor - Can I encourage you to re-read your post (above) and after every single sentence consider how appropriate a response beginning ‘You patronising turd’ seems? > The developing debate is interesting although, initially, I was intersted in why the USA has 10 times more crimianals than comparably affluent European countries… I think his post was 100% spot on. ---
**Author:** ![PrettyVacant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/49beb7/32.png) [@PrettyVacant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PrettyVacant)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2011, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-kind-of-society/591443/116 "2011-08-06T16:20:50Z")
That’s not a great surprise. Back to the debate… ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2011, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-kind-of-society/591443/117 "2011-08-06T16:35:12Z")
[QUOTE=Starving Artist] the popular embrace and defense of gangsta/hip-hop culture [/QUOTE] That affects the crime rate? Okay, so if we look at crime rates from 1989 to 1999, we see that they… [QUOTE=gonzomax] Over 100,000 prisoners work for corporation making about 20 cents an hour. Somebody is getting super cheap labor and a free building to work in. [/QUOTE] And you know, I really don’t care of they enjoy it (considering what it’s better than for them), the United States government should not be buying products manufactured by prisoners, or b y anyone earning less than the minimum wage, or by anyone who can only purchase from a company store, or who is not free to take their skills to a competing operation. And what can they do with those skills? They can get employment in manufacturing, later. Assuming they can get themselves incarcerated again. When you incentivize imprisoning people, you get more prisoners, despite the fact that crime rates have been falling for almost two decades. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2011, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-kind-of-society/591443/118 "2011-08-06T16:39:05Z")
> [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](#): > > Finally **PrettyVacant** , it is always important to remember that becoming _shriller_ does not make you _righter_. …but he don’t care. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2011, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-kind-of-society/591443/119 "2011-08-06T18:20:55Z")
> [@saoirse](#): > > … the United States government should not be buying products manufactured by prisoners, or b y anyone earning less than the minimum wage, or by anyone who can only purchase from a company store, or who is not free to take their skills to a competing operation. The problem here is that the US has a law that private companies can’t buy anything made with prisoner labor (US or any other nation’s prisoners). That leaves only State and Federal governments to buy prison produced products. If they don’t, there’s no work for the prisoners, and they would be paid nothing. So what do you want? Prisoners with no work, private companies buying the stuff and getting the benefits of cheap labor, or the gov’t doing the buying? Which do you think is least likely to be exploiting them? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2011, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-kind-of-society/591443/120 "2011-08-06T18:31:09Z")
> [@PrettyVacant](#): > > That’s not a great surprise. > > Back to the debate… Wait…this is a debate? I thought you were delivering a sermon. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-kind-of-society/591443.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-kind-of-society/591443.md?page=7)