Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bankrupting A Society
American Probation and Parole Association magazine "Perspective" ^ | Fall 1992 | Carl J. Cieslikowski

Posted on 04/29/2002 6:10:32 PM PDT by gcruse

By Carl J. Cieslikowski

We are in a seemingly insoluble budgetary crisis in California.  A  significant part of this crisis results from the prosecution of the "War  on Drugs." One of every six state employees is now working in the  Department of Corrections.  California has 185,750 state employees, and  30,800 work for Corrections. In 1990, the total number of full-time  criminal justice personnel in the entire state of California was  146,157.

California is home to 25 prisons and 40 conservation camps. In the past  12 years we have constructed 18 new prisons with five additional prisons  planned for construction. In our misguided effort of constructing 18 new  prisons, we have taken money from libraries, schools, sports, prevention  and music programs. We simply cannot have it both ways.  Taxpayers  should be outraged at the average expenditure of $22,000 a year to house  an inmate, while we wonder why basic children's services are being  gutted.

A number of factors contributed to the building of the largest prison  system in the United States. Politicians believed they could further  their political careers by being "tough" on crime. So, a tidal wave of  punitive bills, signed by former Governor Deukmejian, burdened  California with the highest incarceration rate in the world! Now, we are  encumbered with huge bureaucracies and solidly entrenched industries  (DEI) who have built their own political machine to maintain their  vested interests at our expense. The proof of the atrocious political  result is best demonstrated in the outrageous growth in prison  population. In 1980 there were 23,726 inmates in prison.  By 1992,  prison population skyrocketed to 102,554.

In 1990 there were 32,300 new law violators sent to state prison. Of  this number, 21% were for violent crimes, 34.5% were for property  crimes, 31.9% for drug law violations, and all others were 12.6%.  Offenders who crave expensive drugs indulge in crimes of violence and  property to sustain their habits. It is estimated that 75% of the  state's offenders are serving time for drug or drug related crimes.  There is even a highly structured and immensely profitable drug trade  within prisons. This industry not only perpetuates the existing user's  dependencies, but also introduces new converts to drugs and sabotages  the efforts of individuals who are making an honest attempt at remaining  free from illicit drugs. As long as the profit in illegal drugs remains  obscenely high, free enterprise will prevail and drug dealers will  continue to pollute every corner of our society.

There is hope we can avoid financial destruction through a realistic  Drug Reform Policy which is in contrast to an inflexible strategy that  is dragging our state into bankruptcy.  We are feeding the voracious  appetite of both private and public industries who have selfish  interests in increasing the present bloated bureaucracy and status quo,  regardless of the dire consequences to our economy. We simply cannot  depend on private and public industries to provide us with a realistic  assessment of the value of their contribution to solving the drug  problem.

The appointment of more judges to fill newly constructed courtrooms is  big business. The building of new prisons is big business. The feeding,  clothing and maintaining of inmates is bug business. The exploding  number of new employees hired by the Department of Corrections is big  business. These factors and more contribute to an already large armada  of private and public agencies whose primary goal include keeping drugs  illegal to preserve profits, ensure job security and promotional  opportunities. Sadly, all this human effort is being wasted on  unproductive expenditures of public funds while our basic social  institutions are being devastated through financial starvation. We have  had ample opportunity to test the present methods of arrest,  prosecution,, incarceration and treatment.  These practices have clearly  failed, compromised our liberties, placed our police officers in  dangerous situations, and created financial chaos.

Although politically unpopular to espouse, a viable solution to the  prison nightmare is the revision of our failed drug policies. As a  cornerstone of an effective policy - we must emphasis drug maintenance  for those already addicted because mandatory drug treatment does not  work. We must face reality and reject the hollow arguments of those  individuals whose jobs or profits depend on mandatory "drug  rehabilitation programs." Less than 10% of mandatory treatment works. We  must stress the cost effectiveness and the importance of education,  jobs, prevention, hope, encouragement and the value of achievement.  Contrast that with bearing the custodial expenses of the human tragedy  stemming from the lack of an investment in our people and their future.  We must admit the criminal model for drug offenders was a noble  experiment which has failed, not because our goals are flawed, but  because the policy is flawed. We must adopt a policy emphasising  decriminalization and regulation, yet admit any policy change is fraught  with difficulty. We must recognize our country has a health crisis and  adopt a model which is realistic, cost-effective and humane.

The reality of actual drug use in our country is obscured by an  exclusive emphasis upon "illicit" drugs which deludes us about the  damage done by "legal" drugs.  The biggest drug dealers in this country  are not publicly recognized because the profits from the alcohol and  tobacco industries are used for campaign contributions and deceptive  advertising messages which hide their real effect on our population.  During Prohibition, when we tried to legislate alcohol intake behavior,  we instead created organizations which benefit from huge profits. Today,  we have created a similar situation wherein drug organizations have  affected the world our grandchildren will inherit.  Now, we should  embark on a strategy against drug prohibition and strengthen education  which proved successful in reducing tobacco use in this country. The  fact is 600,000 Americans die per year from alcohol and tobacco use  compared with 10,000 from heroin and cocaine!


[...] In order to stop the "War on Drugs" from destroying our society, the
following realities should be considered:

We must -
* Realize legislating morality has been a destructive societal policy  and that drug use and abuse are medical problems.
* Admit we are in denial about the true drug issues and problems.
* Be logical and refrain from hysteria which has been generated by  politicians and hired advertising firms.
* Recognize the reasons the current drug policies have failed.
* Take the profit out of drugs by ending prohibition
* Admit "tougher" sentences have not proved successful
* Resist furthering political careers based on "public safety" rhetoric
* Admit mandatory rehabilitation programs for addicts have failed to  produce effective results
* Recognize any new drug policy will have imperfections.  Progress will  require flexibility and the challenge of experimentation.
* Begin prosecuting more serious crimes rather than wasting tax dollars  on drug offenders who are clogging the courts

[...]


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; US: California
KEYWORDS: drugwar; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041 next last
To: general_re
What are laws against murder but a reflection of the belief that murder is morally wrong?

Laws against murder serve to protect other people from would-be murderers. The act of murder, essentially without exception, impairs another person's right to live.

Laws against drug possession protect exactly whom from exactly what? It would seem that the essential desired protections could be provided by less restrictive laws. For example, if the goal is to protect people from the hazards that stoned drivers would pose, pass a law against driving while stoned. If the goal is to protect people from having people pushing drugs on the schoolyard, pass a law against open-air sales and sales to minors.

Nearly all of the problems "caused" by drugs are the result of overt acts. As such, laws against such acts may be enforced without the privacy violations necessary to enforce statutes restricting covert acts.

21 posted on 04/29/2002 8:52:44 PM PDT by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: supercat
The act of murder, essentially without exception, impairs another person's right to live.

And it would be...okay to violate someone's rights? Or is it wrong? Maybe even morally wrong? ;)

Like I said, I'm not unsympathetic to the article or its goals, but this notion of attacking laws based on morality is just nonsensical. Even in the example you give, it is implicitly understood that it is morally wrong to violate another's right to live, which is what justifies a law against it.

22 posted on 04/29/2002 9:14:29 PM PDT by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: krogers58
I believe we should put Darwin's law into effect, and legalize all drugs. Give 'em all they want......it would put a little chlorine into California's gene pool......

Maybe we should help Darwin along. Everybody that gets sent to prison for a violent crime gets a liberal dose of drugs in their food every day and as much more as they want. Confine them to concrete cells for 23 hours a day and let them wash their own single set of clothes in the shower. That ought to cut down on the violent criminals and the expense of the prison system.

23 posted on 04/29/2002 9:25:41 PM PDT by IncredibleHulk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: general_re
. Even in the example you give, it is implicitly understood that it is morally wrong to violate another's right to live, which is what justifies a law against it.

Governments are established by people to protect their (real and perceived) rights. Whether violation of someone's rights is morally right or wrong is irrelevant; what matters is that those in power don't want certain rights violated and are willing to use force to protect them.

24 posted on 04/29/2002 9:32:42 PM PDT by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: supercat
Governments are established by people to protect their (real and perceived) rights. Whether violation of someone's rights is morally right or wrong is irrelevant...

Is it? That's a very interesting distinction you draw parenthetically - what, precisely, is the difference between a "real" right and a "perceived" right?

25 posted on 04/29/2002 9:52:54 PM PDT by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Is it? That's a very interesting distinction you draw parenthetically - what, precisely, is the difference between a "real" right and a "perceived" right?

The right to own human slaves, for example?

26 posted on 04/29/2002 9:57:17 PM PDT by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: supercat
That may be an example, but denotative definitions of this sort are generally pretty limited, insofar as we cannot possibly enumerate all possible examples of "perceived" rights. Hence, we cannot fully identify the extension of the term "perceived right".

So I want to know how we differentiate a real right from one that is only perceived to be a right. Imagine that we are presented with a claim of a new right, one that has never been encountered before. When looking at this claimed right, how do we know whether it is "real" or not? Surely there must be some standard we can apply...

27 posted on 04/29/2002 10:07:19 PM PDT by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Realize legislating morality has been a destructive societal policy and that drug use and abuse are medical problems. * Take the profit out of drugs by ending prohibition

The above two points from the article, basically state the main problem with the WOD.
Profit and telling others what they can and can't do.
28 posted on 04/30/2002 6:48:16 AM PDT by vin-one
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lawdude
accept seeing bodies laying in the streets

Yeah, that's it everyone would be addicts. Your statement has no proof,
to back it up. But I have seen comparisons on this forum that totaly blow away everyone of your assumptions.
Intial use might go up, but then level off.
As far as some rich hollywood personality ODing, before it was drugs it was alcohol.
Every town has an Otis the town drunk, by your theory everyone town should have 100's of town drunks.
It just wouldn't happen.
29 posted on 04/30/2002 6:56:39 AM PDT by vin-one
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
SOURCE= American Probation and Parole Association!!!!

These guys are employed by the WOD. They depend on our tax dollars going towards the WOD for the food they eat. And they publish this?

Kudos and a Cheer from this ANTI-WOD Man!!

No new information but it nice to hear this from an inside source.

EBUCK

30 posted on 04/30/2002 11:17:06 AM PDT by EBUCK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lawdude
easy access to gubment-produced-propo-spewage=lawdude

Look at the numbers. 600 thousand die from alchohol and tobbacco each year. 10 thousand die from the most heinous drug available, heroin, every year. Do we have dead nicotine addicts in the streets? Do we have dead alchoholics in the streets? Well, not in my town we don't either.

And just to help you out I'll let you in on a little secret. All those celebs you named....got their drugs regardless of the WOD. That's right!!!! The WOD did nothing to save them from themselves!!! Oh the humanity. How come we didn't try harder to make sure that they were safe? Why, Oh why, didn't we do something to keep them from exercising their free will?

EBUCK

31 posted on 04/30/2002 11:25:36 AM PDT by EBUCK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: EBUCK
I thought you'd like that. :)
32 posted on 04/30/2002 11:46:41 AM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Thanks for thinking of me. It's cool to see the WOD-establishment show a conscious and a sence of their own hypocrisy.

EBUCK

33 posted on 04/30/2002 12:02:43 PM PDT by EBUCK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: lawdude
seeing bodies laying in the streets.

The only reason we don't see that very much now is DEA and BATF etc police up the bodies they lay in the streets fairly quickly. Then they burn and buldoze the sites to quickly clean up the unsightly results of their work.

34 posted on 04/30/2002 12:07:28 PM PDT by arthurus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: EBUCK
"Do we have dead alchoholics in the streets?"

We do in Phoenix. Not a large number but some none the less. And alcohol is not anywhere near as addictive as crack, meth, heroin, etc. I work with drug users daily and can tell you that there is no turning back FOR MOST. I almost never say all or none< g>.

Please understand, I am an alcoholic and getting off the stuff was easier than quitting smoking by a factor of 100:1. I am also a physicist and criminal defense lawyer. I speak from experience on this subject. Doesn't make me right but it does provide a perspective that most do not enjoy!

35 posted on 04/30/2002 6:09:30 PM PDT by lawdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: arthurus
"Then they burn and buldoze the sites to quickly clean up the unsightly results of their work."

Doncha just hate it when that happens?

36 posted on 04/30/2002 6:11:16 PM PDT by lawdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: lawdude
We do in Phoenix. Not a large number but some none the less. And alcohol is not anywhere near as addictive as crack, meth, heroin, etc. I work with drug users daily and can tell you that there is no turning back FOR MOST. I almost never say all or none.

If there is no chance of turning them back why do we put them in prison? If what they are doing to themselves is in-curable without their consent why force them into treatment? You obviously know that getting forcing horeses to drink is nearly impossible so why do we continue to try?

Please understand, I am an alcoholic and getting off the stuff was easier than quitting smoking by a factor of 100:1. I am also a physicist and criminal defense lawyer. I speak from experience on this subject. Doesn't make me right but it does provide a perspective that most do not enjoy!

I don't think you are entirely wrong. I just think (especially with your experience) that you would understand the completely hopeless situation our current system is in. The current system has been built, tested, measured, revamped, measured, restructured, measured ect. and has come up short every time. It's time for a new method because the old imprison/forced treatment scheme does not work, will never work and has never worked.

I understand that you are heavily vested in the current system but you have to understand that the rest of us (as taxpayers) are just as vested if not more so. You have your job to think about but we have our entire way of life to consider. And those of us that understand the price and responsibility of freedom are willing to let the addicts die in the street if it means freedom for us.

EBUCK

37 posted on 05/01/2002 10:39:51 AM PDT by EBUCK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Drugs ruin people's lives. We must protect them from ruining their lives. Therefore we must send drug users to prisons.

Somehow I can't understand the logic behind that. But I'm sure some jackbooted jackass who supports the war on drugs will explain it to me.

38 posted on 05/01/2002 12:18:50 PM PDT by Rule of Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rule of Law
We must protect them from ruining their lives.

This is social conservatism in a nutshell.

39 posted on 05/01/2002 12:40:28 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: EBUCK
"If there is no chance of turning them back why do we put them in prison?"

Most drug USERS currently in the system are also criminals in other respects. Theft, assault, burglary, and violent crimes. In AZ, since Prop 200, users are given the opportunity to take a treatment program the first couple times. Charges are dismissed and no crime shows on the record. Just how many chances to straighten out does one need.

40 posted on 05/01/2002 9:28:22 PM PDT by lawdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson