The only reason selling drugs is a crime is because it's steals from the pockets of government and those they legislate for (private prisons, police departments, lawyers etc...). Government isn't stupid... They're just greedy.
The only reason selling drugs is a crime is because it's steals from the pockets of government and those they legislate for (private prisons, police departments, lawyers etc...). Government isn't stupid... They're just greedy.
In all seriousness. It could be very interesting to see what happens with these people. It could make a hell of debate "gotcha".
"Well mr. President, thanks for allowing 4 people to be killed,3 women to be raped, 6 armed robberies to take place and x#'s of narcotics to be trafficked. By the way 32 of the men you let out are back in custody. Thank you Mr. President. "
Not that the GOP would actually have the brass to throw that one out there.
"Well mr. President, thanks for allowing 4 people to be killed,3 women to be raped, 6 armed robberies to take place and x#'s of narcotics to be trafficked. By the way 32 of the men you let out are back in custody. Thank you Mr. President. "
Not that the GOP would actually have the brass to throw that one out there.
And it would have to happen. These are non-violent offenders.
My guess is that if they end up back in custody, their crimes will be non-violent and legal in several states.
It could also just as easily go down that Rick Perry, Trump or any of the dozen other candidates rail against being soft on crime, only to have it pointed out that few were arrested again and that many of the 'crimes' that they were convicted for are now considered far more minor, if not legal.
That may very well be true. But there is also a flaw in the thinking that because an individual was apprehended for a "non-violent" offense, that individual is not prone to violence or other more serious criminal activity. A "stick-up kid" or a coke dealer are likely to have a bag of weed in their possession as much as a twerp stoner does when the flashing lights come around.
From my perspective, the major issue is thinking that drugs should be criminalized. And it's quite ironic that this line of thinking typically comes from those that preach "individual liberty" and "get government out of personal choices" and "don't tread on me" and "smaller government", etc.
You didn't even bother to read my post before you posted this, did you? <sigh>
You will say that until some drug sucking piece of crap robs your wife, or breaks in your home to steal your hard earned possessions. Perhaps it will take someone in a drug induced stupor swerving across the center line of a highway killing your child to change your mind. Regardless, as we speak drugs are illegal, and so is the use of drugs. Someone has to stop it. I don't have the authority, that is left to law enforcement and the system.
Decriminalization of drugs would take care of most of the related issues you mention. There's plenty of evidence by observing other countries, or US states, in which they are legal. And when it comes to drug induced driving accidents, our fabulous legal drug--alcohol--is by far the leader in that arena.
Please tell me which of the statements below are false.
All drug users are violent criminals.
All violent criminals use drugs.
Alcohol is less dangerous than drugs.
All people who use drugs are unproductive.
Driving under the influence of alcohol is less dangerous than driving under the influence of marijuana.
All people who use drugs are drug addicts.
The war on drugs has created wealthy drug cartels.
Marijuana is illegal in all 50 states.
Similar threads
