Just because something is passed in my state, it doesn't necessarily mean it passes muster with me. If I marched to the tune of everything Utah does I'd be a Republican. Anyway, I'm definitely for mandatory minimums, especially because we have too many judges who give slaps on the wrist. And I have no problem with drug users I'm prison, especially if they're repeat offenders. I've worked with people going through drug court, and treatment can be a valid option the first time around, but sometimes they need a wake up call.
And I do blame liberals in the overall sense of them being weaker on crime and the ones usually wanting drugs legalized.
ok. The thing is, prohibition didn't work and prison sentences or mand. min as a deterrent has not worked.
I don't think we have to throw up our hands and give up, but the measures used in the past haven't worked...if the aim was to curb, reduce or eliminate alcohol or drug use.That's not an opinion, that's a fact.
Utah is hardly a liberal stronghold, so when you start seeing states like that revising their sentencing policies, that's an indication that the old policies aren't working.
I mentioned in the "Heroin overdose" thread in another section of the board that it was easy to convince society to "lock them away and throw away the key" when the public face of drug users was Black/Brown people in the ghetto. Drug use has permeated all segments of society in a very public way. Harder to convince the general public to "lock them all up for good" when the faces reflect people they can relate to. Again, this is not just my opinion. People have been OD'ing on heroin for decades. The purity is stronger now and the zip codes of the victims are different, so the L.E. response is different. Cops in the tri-state area (NY,NJ,CT) carry heroin rescue kits now. I made a joke that the Don of Detroit from the GF was wrong!!!
There is going to be more and more public support for the reduction of drug sentences as the public face of drug users changes.
You're coming from a purely deterrence standpoint. That's a secondary concern to me. My primary concern is about justice. Like when people argue that the death penalty isn't a deterrence for crime (and that's debatable). Whether it is or isn't, putting a murderer to death is justice.
And once again, prohibition hasn't worked because it hasn't been enforced right. Like I said, you start wiping out those involved in the drug trade both here and elsewhere, you'll see a difference. But people don't have the stomach for it and you'd have the usual suspects (liberals) gravitating towards criminals, as they've always done, and whining about their rights, us becoming a police state, or other BS. As if the scourge of drugs, or legalized drugs, is somehow more preferable.
Originally Posted By: mightyhealthy
Ivy you realize people are able to separate their politics from their religion, right? Not everyone is so scared of "liberal fags."
I realize one can't do that and still be morally or intellectually consistent. It's why I take self-professed Christians to task when they're pro-abortion or pro-gay marriage. If you claim to believe and worship one way but then go vote another, you're a hypocrite who's religion doesn't mean that much no matter how much mental gymnastics you use to justify it.
Mods should mind their own business and leave poster's profile signatures alone.
