28-07-2004 06:40									#91
	Suffering from ads?

More like we're taking a public safety approach. Removal from law-abiding society. I think neither punishment nor rehabilitation are particularly effective.

	28-07-2004 06:46									#92
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Dan S -

quote: That's a good argument, but its weak point is that we have prohibition and the murder rate started going down real fast when we threw more bad guys in jail. It seems to validate the proposition that indeed you can jail your way out of the problem.

That's apples and oranges, there are ~20 million drug users and only a few hundred or thousand murderers. Sure you can arrest your way to a significantly reduced murder rate because there are so few murderers. But the murder rate is still much higher than murder rates before and in between drug wars. Again, if you support a policy that doubles homicide rates, it is illogical to justify that policy by pointing to a ~%5 drop in the now higher rate.

Remember, we need to compare homicide rates for ~1900, 1925, 1950, and 2004 to see the effect of prohibition. The homicide rate doubled under alcohol prohibition, was cut in half when prohibition was repealed, then doubled again with the newer drug war. I don't have the most recent stats but I believe the homicide rate is still close to double what it was when we weren't waging drug wars. If I had my way (and you had yours), I'd want to see every murderer, rapist, robber, and terrorist behind bars and the cops needed to catch them on the payroll. But how can we want that regarding drugs? That's ~20 million people!

quote: I don't like the results either, but I dislike the alternatives even more.

The alternative is lower taxes, fewer people in jail for exercising their freedom (certainly a moral component there), relieving the pressure on the courts/jails so fewer real criminals get plea bargains and reduced sentences, a homicide rate about half as much as we see now, a big reduction in property crime, and eliminating the financial motive for adults and minors to get involved with the illicit drug trade (there's alot more too, like using the vast law enforcement resources currently wasted chasing drug users to prevent terrorist attacks). Your side claims drug use will dramatically increase (and that's your only argument), perhaps, but that's speculative. We have plenty of history to show that consumption rates don't change much under prohibition.

Doc, do you have a link? For example, drug dealing and possession of a gun constitutes 2 felonies - the gun charge can be called the more severe of the two, but neither is a violent crime.

	28-07-2004 06:55									#93
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I don't doubt the USA is a very different society and what works for us might not work for you.

The main difference with the guns here is it's hard to get sent to gaol for nonviolent crime unless it's very serious. Other penalties are used. If however you use a weapon of any kind or violence of any kind in the commission of a crime you will almost always get sent to gaol. That means the crims tend to try and do their business without weapons or violence.

We have gun control but I could go and buy a firearm today no problem and hardened crims can still get them easily. Handguns however are hard to get and violent crims tend to use shortened shotguns and rifles rather than hand guns. This helps the cops because you don't shorten a rifle to go hunting - so if you are caught with such a weapon, again, you will almost certainly go to gaol just for possessing such a weapon.

It seems to work quite well in lowering the violence in society though a large proportion of the population would prefer a US style approach.

	28-07-2004 06:57									#94
	Full PM-box? Change here!

forgive me... wtf is "gaol" ?

	28-07-2004 07:02									#95
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

According to the statistics I'm looking at, the murder rates increased substantially before each of the prohibition and the War on Drugs. During prohibition and the War on Drugs, the murder rates increased even further (but not even close to doubling). After prohibition, the murder rate plummeted. We're still in the War on Drugs, and the murder rate has plumetted to lower than immediately before the War.

See attached chart. 2001 includes 9/11, so there's a blip.

Attachment: hmrt.gif
This has been downloaded 43 time(s).

	28-07-2004 07:06									#96
	Full PM-box? Change here!

You notice how that graph seems to rise for Republican presidents... and drops for Democratic presidents? Look at the 90's. Look at the late 30's. Roosevelt and Clinton...

Even Jimmy Carter got a drop... but he only had one term and came after Nixon/Ford.

I'd like to see 2001-2003... but I suspect, as with the later 80's, murder rates rise with Bush's.

	28-07-2004 07:07									#97
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Regarding 20 million drug users, the vast majority are probably dope smokers. Maybe some x too (although as I understand it, that's on the way out). Anyway, I'm not too concerned about those people, although I do note that one of the most notorious crews in DC in the 90s dealt pot.

I've heard that there is some synthetic form of cocaine that is just being introduced, but I don't know too much about that. I would be more concerned with this.

	28-07-2004 07:09									#98
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by DanS although I do note that one of the most notorious crews in DC in the 90s dealt pot.

another reason why we should take their source of income away...

	28-07-2004 07:12									#99
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Sava forgive me... wtf is "gaol" ?

It's the correct spelling for what you North Americans call "jail".

	28-07-2004 07:14									#100
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I've never heard of that.

JAIL... NOT GAOL...

	28-07-2004 07:19									#101
	Increase Your PM Length

Jail.

EDIT: this is why you should refresh after being away from the screen for ~10 minutes

	28-07-2004 07:30									#102
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Australia is almost a case study on crime and punishment and what benefits society.

The place started out as a pretty grim dumping ground for criminals, most them of a petty nature like stealing bread or a handkerchief (a very common crime leading to transportation). Australia was one big prison farm.

But the early British governors were quite enlightened and quickly realised that unless a viable economy was established the colony would fail. It couldn't even feed itself in the early days.

The main potential source of productive citizens were the convicts. So they did 2 things - they set up really awful prisons like Norfolk Island and Port Arthur for the convicts that wouldn't reform and for those that would reform they gave them "tickets of leave" (parole) and grants of money or land to establish farms or businesses.

The result was that from the beginning Australian society was one that rewarded enterprise and since the real crime of most of the convicts was just a byproduct of overpopulation and poverty in Britain, the colonies thrived. Many of the wealthiest families in Australia have a convict past.

The outcome could have been very different if the convicts had not been given those opportunities.

	28-07-2004 07:39									#103
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

So you're saying that sending all convicts to the moon would be a good idea?

	28-07-2004 07:43									#104
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Dan S -

quote: According to the statistics I'm looking at, the murder rates increased substantially before each of the prohibition and the War on Drugs. During prohibition and the War on Drugs, the murder rates increased even further (but not even close to doubling). After prohibition, the murder rate plummeted. We're still in the War on Drugs, and the murder rate has plumetted to lower than immediately before the War.

First, drug prohibition preceded alcohol prohibition with the Harrison Act of 1913 and various state laws before that, albeit that's hardly what we think of as a drug war. There is a big difference between the drug prohibition of the late 19th century and the drug war of the late 20th. But wrt the feds, all drugs were legal before 1913 I believe and legal in some states and illegal in others. But assuming a ~5/100,000 baseline in non-drug war years, the rate in 1910 and 1950, the rate did double by the end of alcohol prohibition and dropped back down to the baseline until ~1970 when it began climbing again. Look at the rates in 1960 and 1980-85, the latter is more than double. Why? Black market violence. Where did you see a substantial increase before Nixon's drug war? And the rate has not dropped to below the rate before the current drug war. The rate before Nixon was below 5 and it's still around 6 or 7, although I'm surprised it has dropped that much. Arresting a sizeable percent of young males in the name of fighting a drug war would logically have a significant impact on murder rates since that population group commits the most murders, but how is that moral? Arrest millions of young people for being involved with drugs and then use the declining homicide rate to justify jailing all those people regardless of whether or not they've committed murder? Sure, if we jail %5-7 of younger males, the bulk of the prison population, that'll reduce homicide rates simply because they are the most likely to commit murder.

Then there is the moral component, it is simply immoral to jail millions of people for exercising their freedom. It is immoral to jail millions of people for using drugs because a small minority of drug users commit murder, rape, robbery, etc... That is the same rationale used by white racists who wanted to jail, kill, or deport black and brown people. Because some dark person committed murder, get rid of dark people... We don't use that standard for white people, for people who don't use drugs, for "us"...

	28-07-2004 07:49									#105
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

AH -

quote: The place started out as a pretty grim dumping ground for criminals, most them of a petty nature like stealing bread or a handkerchief (a very common crime leading to transportation). Australia was one big prison farm.

I understand many were sent because they were in debt, i.e., debtor's prison. Georgia was intially a debtor's prison...

	28-07-2004 08:25									#106
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

That would be possible - though I hadn't heard of it.

We pretty much got everything from political prisoners to petty thieves and homeless people.

What we didn't get was many serious violent criminals because those went straight to public execution in merry old England.

	28-07-2004 08:36									#107
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Then there is the moral component, it is simply immoral to jail millions of people for exercising their freedom. It is immoral to jail millions of people for using drugs because a small minority of drug users commit murder, rape, robbery, etc... That is the same rationale used by white racists who wanted to jail, kill, or deport black and brown people. Because some dark person committed murder, get rid of dark people... We don't use that standard for white people, for people who don't use drugs, for "us"...

It's not the same rationale. One the one hand drug users are acting very reckless, using a drug that they know is addicting, dangerous and that can lead them to commit crime and neglect their families, jobs etc... On the other hand just being of a certain race isn't reckless or neglectfull.

	28-07-2004 09:15									#108
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Generally, a high prison population is not nessecarily a bad thing. If it means we are caputring the dangerous people in society and keeping them locked away, it is a good thing. The purpose of prison is after all protection from those who are dangerous, and if they are kept in prison, then they aren't out in public comitting crimes. I think California has the right idea in this regard- for repeat felony offenders, people who continually show a disregard for our law and continue to violate it, those people need to be removed from society. I'd think it would also be a good idea for people who are convicted of violent felonies twice to be removed from society and placed in prison, where they cannot hurt the public.

I'm not as conservative as I used to be, and I don't object to the government trying to help out the neediest people of our society to help give them a chance. But I think they have to be willing to meet us half way, and if they continually break our laws they need to be removed from society.

	28-07-2004 09:20									#109
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Shi Huangdi if they continually break our laws they need to be removed from society.

spoken like a true communist - bring on the Gulag

You define "continual" as twice or three times?

	28-07-2004 09:25									#110
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Kid -

quote: It's not the same rationale. One the one hand drug users are acting very reckless, using a drug that they know is addicting, dangerous and that can lead them to commit crime and neglect their families, jobs etc... On the other hand just being of a certain race isn't reckless or neglectfull.

It is the same rationale and you just proved my point by using another generalisation to justify imprisoning the innocent because of the guilty. Being "reckless" is not a punishable offense unless the recklessness causes someone actual harm, not hurt feelings. And not everyone who uses a drug is reckless, addicted (not a crime either), or neglect their families. You're saying millions of people should be jailed because a small minority among those millions do bad things to others and that is immoral. If you don't think so, would you advocate jailing people who don't use drugs because some of them are reckless or neglect their families? Of course not, and if you did and tried to enforce such an immoral idea, you'd quickly be killed by one of your would-be victims. According to many here, poverty can cause crime. Using your logic, being poor is a crime and requires the punishment of poor people.

Dan S - I forgot to mention that the homicide rates would be even higher than 80 years ago if not for advancements in medicine. Today many people who would have died because of the violent culture spawned by the drug war are alive because they were saved by doctors. How many is a good question but I'd say 1 or 2 per 100,000 is a conservative estimate.

	28-07-2004 09:29									#111
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Shi Huangdi Generally, a high prison population is not nessecarily a bad thing. If it means we are caputring the dangerous people in society and keeping them locked away, it is a good thing.

Actually, it means the prisons are full, and we can't lock up all of the criminals. Worse, it doesn't deter crime. There are too many criminals out there who haven't been put in prison yet, and many kids who will become criminals when they become teenagers.

Prisons are not a good thing. They are a sign of very serious problems in our society.

	28-07-2004 09:30									#112
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse spoken like a true communist - bring on the Gulag You define "continual" as twice or three times?

There's nothing wrong if that's crimes against people, but when you have people locked away forever for crimes against property or victimless crimes it gets pretty ridiculous...

	28-07-2004 09:38									#113
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Kid - It is the same rationale and you just proved my point by using another generalisation to justify imprisoning the innocent because of the guilty. Being "reckless" is not a punishable offense unless the recklessness causes someone actual harm, not hurt feelings.

Nonsense. Example reckless driving. Do you think that people should be able to drive 100mph on the sidewalk?

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker And not everyone who uses a drug is reckless, addicted (not a crime either), or neglect their families.

Yes they are reckless. Using drugs is a reckless act. Drug have a chemical effect on the brain. A drug user has no idea when this chemical effect is going to change his/her personality.

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker According to many here, poverty can cause crime. Using your logic, being poor is a crime and requires the punishment of poor people.

You can't jail someone for being poor (even though we do). That's completely unjustified. They have absolutely no control over that.

	28-07-2004 09:52									#114
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Generally, a high prison population is not nessecarily a bad thing.

It is a strong indicator of a morally bankrupt system. Virtually everyone understands the difference between a law that protects people from violence and a law that punishes personal behavior - respect for the former is widespread, respect for the latter is weak. If ~%70 of the people want a law and %30 don't, the law is very likely immoral and will result in an increased level of dis-respect for the state and those empowered to enforce the law.

quote: If it means we are caputring the dangerous people in society and keeping them locked away, it is a good thing. The purpose of prison is after all protection from those who are dangerous, and if they are kept in prison, then they aren't out in public comitting crimes.

It's a very bad thing when we define "danger" as someone we think will commit a crime (as Kidicious has just done), not someone who has committed a crime. Then it becomes an immoral policy... The prison population would be much smaller if we believed in freedom.

quote: I think California has the right idea in this regard- for repeat felony offenders, people who continually show a disregard for our law and continue to violate it, those people need to be removed from society. I'd think it would also be a good idea for people who are convicted of violent felonies twice to be removed from society and placed in prison, where they cannot hurt the public.

Given how politicians define "violent" felonies, that includes people who are merely exercising their freedom of association, i.e., drug dealing is now a "violent crime".
Ask these people how it can be a violent crime with no victim and they claim the buyer is the victim, the person who walked up to a dealer asking to be the victim of a violent crime , but they want to punish the victim too... That shows they don't really believe their own argument...

Sound like the excuse commies use for their ideology? Yup, it's the same... Commies justify the imposition of their ideology by claiming we the workers are the victims of capitalism and if we the workers believe we are not victims, that's too bad because they've decided we are. So the prohibitionists tell drug users they are the victims and it doesn't matter if the drug users say they are not victims, the prohibitionists have decided they are victims.

	28-07-2004 09:57									#115
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker It's a very bad thing when we define "danger" as someone we think will commit a crime (as Kidicious has just done), not someone who has committed a crime.

There are all kinds of laws against reckless behavior. Putting people and their property at risk is a cost to those at risk just as actual damage to their body or property is.

	28-07-2004 09:58									#116
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Actually, it means the prisons are full, and we can't lock up all of the criminals. Worse, it doesn't deter crime. There are too many criminals out there who haven't been put in prison yet, and many kids who will become criminals when they become teenagers. Prisons are not a good thing. They are a sign of very serious problems in our society.

If the prisons are full, then build more prisons. We're the world's richest nation and we can afford to incarcerate those who commit crimes. Russia isn't nearly as rich as we are and they still lock up a whole lot of people.

Whether prisons are a deterrant or not, they will always be effective in one sense. If one is in prison, then they are not comitting crimes. So the more dangerous people who commit crimes you put in there, the less crime you will have.

	28-07-2004 10:01									#117
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Berzerker: You misunderstood me. I only favor punishment of people who prove themselves dangerous by actually committing a crime, nor do I believe in victimless crimes.

	28-07-2004 10:03									#118
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

There are big similarities between the path the US is going down now and what Britain was doing on crime in the late 18th and early 19th century.

	28-07-2004 10:13									#119
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Shi Huangdi If the prisons are full, then build more prisons.

I'm going to tell you that many criminals haven't been caught yet and many future criminals aren't teenagers yet. Then you are going to say turn American into a police state.

	28-07-2004 10:16									#120
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Kid -

quote: Nonsense. Example reckless driving. Do you think that people should be able to drive 100mph on the sidewalk?

If they own the sidewalk, yes. The owners get to decide how to regulate the use of that sidewalk, not people who don't own it. You're using a tangibly reckless behavior on PUBLIC property to justify punishing people you falsely accuse of reckless behavior, i.e., people sitting in their home using a drug. I've noticed how many supporters of prohibition have trouble making a distinction between public and private property, another interesting commonality with communists.

quote: Yes they are reckless. Using drugs is a reckless act.

Prove it. And so what? People would have never left the valley and spread out across the globe if not for "reckless" behavior. People would have never walked on the moon if not for "reckless" behavior. You need something more tangible than this ambiguous and subjective "reckless behavior" to justify punishing people. Answer this: if the government did not exist, would you go around threatening people to get their money (how taxes are collected now) so you could break down the doors of other people to cage them for using drugs in the privacy of their homes?

quote: Drug have a chemical effect on the brain.

Damn near everything has a chemical effect on the brain. Even jogging releases a drug produced by the body into the bloodstream, a drug called "endomorphine". Sound familiar? It means "the morphine within". Wanna claim exercise is reckless now?

quote: A drug user has no idea when this chemical effect is going to change his/her personality.

Becoming religious can change your personality, but some drugs like pot have long histories and well known effects. It isn't a crime to have a change of personality... Nor is it "reckless"...

quote: You can't jail someone for being poor (even though we do). That's completely unjustified. They have absolutely no control over that.

Sure they do, they can get educated and work their behinds off. Millions do it every generation...

Your argument: there is a link between drug use and crime, punish drug users even if they don't commit crimes.

Similar argument: there is a link between poverty and crime, punish poor people even if they don't commit crimes.

You say the latter is unjustified but not the former. Why? Because poor people can't help it? Maybe drug users can't help it. Weak argument... Immoral argument... It is immoral to punish someone because you think they might hurt someone else or because you think they might have a change of personality. It's their personality, not yours...