So you are at least for long mandatory sentences, and progressively much longer sentences for repeat offenders if they threaten or cause physical harm to someone during their crime???? Well, that is a start. We'll see how you feel about adding theft to the list after your house and car get torn apart a few times.
We are in fundamental disagreement on several points.
1. You either believe that there is no connection between drug use and crime (which is ignoring the plain facts), or you believe that any connection, regardless of whether its even 100%, simply doesn't matter. I infer that you think the latter. To make a traffic law analogy, this would result in having no speed limits anywhere, because potential energy never killed anyone. To you, it is the failure to stop, not excessive speed, that is the problem. And if the speed limits were eliminated and death rates climbed 500%, so what, they are just failing to stop. Conversely, I see the connection and feel as much responsibility for what I fail to do as what I do.
2. You continually compare drug use to alcohol consumption as a means of downplaying it. I don't consider this any more valid than comparing scotch to coffee. Apples and oranges.
3. You believe the everything goes society you prescribe would be freer. From historical precedent, I think it would implode with devastating results for personal liberties in a fairly short period. The fascists were the law and order party in Italy, and quite popular because of it.
How did abundant, legal, and priced right opium work out for the Chinese? Don't blame the British, they weren't forcing anyone to use it.
Considering that I have been speaking about nonviolent crimes the entire course of this discussion, I'm glad you have finally picked up on it. Tenth time is a charm, I suppose.
We'll see how you feel about adding theft to the list after your house and car get torn apart a few times.
Theft harms others objectively, and I support keeping it illegal. But, I have a higher bar for LWOP or death for those who commit such crimes (1) than you do, and (2) compared to those who rape, murder, etc., for which I have much less patience.
1. You either believe that there is no connection between drug use and crime (which is ignoring the plain facts), or you believe that any connection, regardless of whether its even 100%, simply doesn't matter.
You either believe that there is no connection between drug prohibition and crime (which is ignoring the plain facts), or you believe that any connection, regardless of whether its even 100%, simply doesn't matter.
To make a traffic law analogy, this would result in having no speed limits anywhere, because potential energy never killed anyone.
Bad analogy. (First, it's kinetic energy, not potential.) Reckless driving places others directly in jeopardy, whereas someone smoking a joint or snorting meth does not. But, like a KKK bigot or a Million Mom Marcher, you can't distinguish peaceable drug use (being black, gun ownership) from ancillary criminal activity, e.g. gangs.
2. You continually compare drug use to alcohol consumption as a means of downplaying it. I don't consider this any more valid than comparing scotch to coffee. Apples and oranges.
This country has experimented with alcohol prohibition, just as it now does do with drug prohibition. The same things said about drugs today have been said about alcohol: it ruins lives, it leads to hopelessness, it addicts most who try it, it's immoral and corrupts those who try it, it's poison, it kills people through disease, etc. Same old same old. I don't compare alcohol to drugs, except to say that alcohol kills ~50,000/year (which is far more than all illegal drugs put together) but rather I compare Prohibition to the drug war.
3. You believe the everything goes society you prescribe would be freer. From historical precedent, I think it would implode with devastating results for personal liberties in a fairly short period.
Cocaine, heroin, pot - all were legal for 100 years or more in this country from its founding to ~1906. What implosion happened during this time? You're the one citing historical precedent. Please cite it.
How did abundant, legal, and priced right opium work out for the Chinese? Don't blame the British, they weren't forcing anyone to use it.
Maybe not "forcing" but it was in their interest for there to be a lot of addicts, so they did what they could to encourage use. Comparing my position to that is dishonest, to say the least.