Yours is a thoughtful reply. That is evident from your acknowledgment that "It is not a one-size fits all proposition, and sometimes corruption in the criminal justice system creates more problems than they solve."
I ask you to extend your analysis to answer this question, when do you take away the freedom of choice of the individual to abuse narcotics by labeling the very use a crime? I ask this because you seem to take both sides of the question. Some addicts, evidently your son, needed a moderate term of incarceration in a clinical facility to recover, such addicts, you quite rightly contend, are unlikely to recover absent such clinical intervention.
Note: the the forced intervention or incarceration in a clinical institution has to have some basis in law. Do you say that the mere act of consuming is that basis? Do you contend that only dealers should be incarcerated? If so, that rather vitiates the argument for rehabilitation of the users by incarceration or forced time in clinic.
Yet, for a chronic "dope head" you acknowledge that long-term incarceration, (does this mean jail time?) Is required. How do you oppose long-term incarceration for mere use? At what point do you say to the chronic addict, you are no longer the captain of your ship, you no longer have jurisdiction over your own body which we have granted to women to abort at will, we as the state are by force intervening in your life and we incarcerate you long-term in an institution, (presumably) for your own good?
I think you must answer the question, why do I not have the right to ruin my life by using drugs if that is my bent? Let us presume that I have committed no crime beyond using.
Finally, I think we both have to admit that addiction of an illegal substance virtually requires the user to become a pusher because of the economics inherent in the government rendering the trafficking drugs illegal.
What say you to that?
My son was in county jail for about 90 days because I refused to bail him out until he submitted to some time of rehab. Bail bonding laws have now been changed to where they would have let him out and the cycle would have continued. He submitted to a rehab facility, but there was a problem with that place (not good counseling and worked like a labor camp)to where he ended back in jail. Because he had started talking some sense by then, I agreed to bond him out and he came to live with me under the condition that he would stay clean, follow his Drub Court regimen and keep and work at a job.
At that point, he had been clean long enough to where he started to think more rationally. He was able to submit to Drug Court supervision that required group counseling and attendance at AA or drug recovery support groups. The most important aspect of Drug Court was that he had to submit to random drug testing, usually 3 to 4 times per month. If he messed up and used or missed a drug test (they had a color coding system). He messed up a couple of times by using and missed a call in, and the judge gave him some court sanctions, like 3 or four days in jail. But eventually he stayed clean and was dismissed from Drug Court. We learned along the way that it is not at all unusual that a recovering addict might slip up and use, but there was enough determination there on his part to stay the course and allow himself to fall into full relapse. By the time he had those lapses, he had a good track record on a job and was even beginning to look to the future.
The law does not address use, to my knowledge. Possession charges are the way that is enforced. That is ok with me, but the damage from use cannot be contained within the individual . . . it costs their family and it costs society. I think we definitely have an interest in discouraging use. I admit to having a bit of a libertarian streak in me, but there are very few people who can successfully insulate themselves to the point where they will not adversely impact people around them. So, in my mind, possession of small amounts usually equates to use and, yes, some level of criminality needs to remain so they can be at least supervised.
Believe me, I have had enough tools and stuff stolen from me to say that most users are a menace to society. It must be addressed and discouraged or it will grow into trafficking. Plus, about 7 or 8 of my son’s user friends are now DEAD. . . overdose and murder.
There are some who don’t just “mess up”, but repeatedly fall into relapse. Every counselor will tell you that the key rehabilitation is that the must, within themselves, come to a point to where the really WANT to get clean. By the nature of his lapses, the one-shot uses and his obvious sorrow it, and his fear that it would de-rail his Drug Court plan, I could tell it was his desire to get clean. Trained counselors experienced with addicts can recognize the difference.
To me, the fact that there has be a supply mechanism to support drug use is reason enough to invalidate someone’s “right to ruin their own life”. Their use typically is supportive of a supply system that also wrecks the lives of many others. If that part can be managed by a system that does not put others at risk, by all means fry your brains, but he should be allowed to die in the gutter where he falls if that is his choice.
The law needs to be very, very tough on traffickers. Need to get to work. Hope I didn’t miss anything major.