2006-08-02 18:29:17 · 23 answers · asked by mznatural30 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
In light of the fact that murderers, rapists, and child molesters often see more lenient sentences, I would have to say yes. Given that alcohol, a legal drug, causes more violence, death, and destruction than a lot of illegal drugs, I would have to say yet. Too many politicians ride into office one stances of harsher drug penalties under the "War on Drugs" banner and couldn't care less about the realities involved in the situation. So one guy goes to jail for 10 years for selling some X while another guy gets a couple years probation for rape because there's not a government sanctioned "War on Rape".
2006-08-02 18:45:35 · answer #1 · answered by Winter Arcane 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. I think it is too lenient. If you look at communities with rampant drug use, most of the crimes there are related to drugs (a druggie breaking into homes or vehicles) to retireve high value items to pawn for their habit. And it is these same people who raise the crime recidivism rate once they are released, as they do not want to quit.
Oh, by the way, anyone who thinks drug abuse/addiction is an illness is a moron. If you follow that logic, then smokers have an illness (not talking about cancer or emphysema, just the smoking). More likely than not, the 15-20 is for dealing, or involved with some other crime, so I don't think that it is enough.
2006-08-02 20:31:43 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends. Drug addiction is an illness not a crime. Drug dealing is a crime, but many do it only to support their habit. I do think it is a little ridiculous that a drug dealer can get 20 years for selling drugs to a bunch of people who have been doing drugs their whole lives to deal with being MOLESTED as kids, while the child molesters rarely see a day in jail. That's messed up.
2006-08-02 18:33:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Were they sentenced for using or selling? Were they sentenced to a first, 2nd, or 3rd+ offense? When arrested did the individual have any weapons or try to evade arrest by high speed chase and or endanger Innocent bystanders in any way? Were children (their own or a neighbors) living with the perpetrator and/or present for the arrest and or placed in foster care due to an arrest of his/her parents? I'm for a 15 to 20 year sentence for most of the above scenarios... But then I'm not to sure it would help the poor dears who are obviously under allot of strain and need medication they cant afford and have to steal from other people to purchase illegally at a mark up of 500% from his "source"(referencing to the illegal pharmacist who brought it into the country in the first place) But that's just my opinion.
2006-08-02 19:48:17 · answer #4 · answered by eldertrouble 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That would depend on many factors. Is this a first offense, or one of several? How big was the bust (how much drugs are we talking about)? Using or dealing or transporting or all of the above? Was violence involved? Weapons? I can conceive of situations where it would be appropriate. Maybe the judge gave that sentence knowing the convicted would only serve half of the minimum, anyway.
2006-08-02 18:36:02 · answer #5 · answered by Silvax 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO. And if you or who ever is looking at 15 to 20, I am going to bet money that this is not the first conviction, or even the second. Am I right?
Was it for just possession, or was their a distrubution tacked on as well? That also will be a deciding factor as well as the amount of drugs.
2006-08-02 22:35:22 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
For drugs only? No violent crimes or effects on innocents? Yes. Too strict.
Oh, and JTM - in some countries, (e.g. the Netherlands) there are virtually NO drug laws because the philosophy is 'there is no such thing as a victimless crime'. People are free to do what they want as long as they don't hurt OTHERS.
So, JTM, if you want to use communist China's ideals or the like as your example to justify your witch hunt, you go right ahead. We don't all want our government to serve that kind of control.
Mao Zedong instituted that bullet-in-the-head cure for drugs.
JTM, maybe you could punish people for talking, because if people can't communicate, then they can't be a detriment to society? I just can't subscribe to that mind-controlling government philosphy.
Oh, and by the way - prescription drugs are legal. Why can't we be free to make up our own minds about what's good for us?
2006-08-02 18:34:34 · answer #7 · answered by JB 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, no one should go to prison for drugs. If the taxpayers should pay for anything, it should be for drug users to get help. Our prisons are already to full for violent criminals due to the amount of non-violent drug users in them. Murderers, rapists, pedophiles, and kidnappers are repeatedly given early release due to overcrowded prisons. For instance, there are 77,000 people in the federal prison system for marijuana use. That is insane. That space could be used for real criminals who hurt other people.
2006-08-02 18:51:57 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If a drug dealer. No. Should follow my country and give the death sentence. A drug dealer profits from the misery of others and destroy lives.
2006-08-02 18:36:11 · answer #9 · answered by lynnbtohs 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
15 to 20, hell yes it is. the law is the law you don't like it move to a 3rd world country then u can use all the dope you want. but how ever if this person were a dealer, then it should be life, serves them right for poisoning our children
2006-08-02 19:13:08 · answer #10 · answered by James M 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋