It is clear from a previous question I asked that lots of people prefer to ignore the responsibilities that illegal drug users have for the crimes that are committed by drug dealing gangsters.
Shouldn't the users face as severe penalties for their crime as the dealers do for theirs after all they are part and parcel of the same problem and if the users disappeared so would the dealers and the associated crime?
2007-03-11 01:13:39 · 19 answers · asked by Barrie G 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
Checkers:
Telll that to their families.
2007-03-11 01:25:42 · update #1
CHOP THEIR HANDS OFF ..THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TROUBLE SHOOTING UP
2007-03-11 01:17:09 · answer #1 · answered by michael b 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
There are 4 million illegal drug users today in Britain. The vast majority of which will commit no other crime, nor harm themselves or others. The very illegality of the drugs is what creates most of the misery and crime.
Where exactly were you planning to imprison all these drug users? And how, if the prisons are flooded with drugs (I know this from experience), will sending them there improve anything?
2007-03-14 01:40:53 · answer #2 · answered by Chrispy 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The war against drugs was started by Reagan, it still hasn't been won so why not? Because prohibition doesn't work. It just makes money for gangsters.
Its the same as when the states had prohibition for alcohol, all that happened was that gangsters got powerful and wealthy.
No one is ignoring the facts, its just that stiffer penalties don't prevent the problem starting up; and they don't cure the problem once its a problem.
If stiffer penalties worked there wouldn't be any drug users right now.
If users faced the same penalties as dealers then they would deal to pay for their own use, because there wouldn't be any incentive to avoid the risk.
Its just not the answer to the problem. Punishment doesn't prevent drug use or cure drug users. Its been the 'solution' for 20 years and its time to face facts, it doesn't work.
2007-03-11 03:51:41 · answer #3 · answered by sarah c 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I may be repeating what others have said but Barrie wants to know, I presume, what people think.
Well, here is my thought. There is a chain of wrongdoing that starts with the supplier. His sentence should be the greatest because without his supply the matter would not progress.
The next in line is the pusher. His sentence should still be great but not as great as the supplier's.
The user is, although people think is the last in this chain, is the one who takes the drugs, often commits offences and is punished by the courts or and this is the more important fact, is taken to hospital where Doctors and Nurses are often subjected to intimidation and violence.
You see why the user is not last in the chain?
There could be siblings, parents and others in Families who are affected.
So now it comes to the crunch.
From the supplier to the Family, the hospital or the courts.
For supply, the sentence should be not less than 10 years, confiscation of all assets including property and cash.
For pushing, the sentence should be not less than 5 years with confiscation of all personal assets.
For using the user should be assessed for treatment and monitored for 5 years to rid him of the habit and to assure him that this is a wake up call.
In respect of 'him' please understand that I do not exclude 'her'.
2007-03-11 06:54:10 · answer #4 · answered by MANCHESTER UK 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Drug users do face severe prison time. That is the reason that our prisons are full and the reason that the U.S. incarcerates a higher percentage of their population than does any other nation.
It should be crystal clear to anyone by now that this is not working. We've been waging the "war on drugs" now for over 30 years, and it only gets worse.
So long as their are drugs and people, there will be users.
Tax cuts and starvation of government has made it effectively impossible for many to get any treatment for their drug use. (Let's face it, these folks don't have insurance)
In my state, possession of a controlled substance, 1st offense is punishable by 3 - 10 years in prison. (except marijuana where a 1st offense is a misdemeanor, but subsequent offenses are 3 - 10 years)
Because of prison overcrowding, a person sentenced to 3 years will likely be paroled after 8 to 10 months, and will receive no treatment while incarcerated.
Does this sound like a solution?????????
Actually Sara C, it was Nixon, not Reagan that declared the "war on drugs." Not trying to be "picky" but that makes it a nearly 40 year "war."
2007-03-11 03:27:59 · answer #5 · answered by huduuluv 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think the harsh penalties should be reserved for the pushers, if "Hard" drugs were legalised and controlled then you'd see a drop-off in the number of users, in Holland the average age of heroin addicts has been rising steadily, proving less youngsters are getting caught up,more education about the subject is needed ....just telling kids " drugs are bad" is simply not going to do the job.I brought up three sons in a "deprived area" and educated them about the effects of drug use and they're all well balanced individuals
2007-03-11 03:16:38 · answer #6 · answered by kevinrogers24 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The legal dealers of cigarettes and alcohol should have been jailed years ago for the misery and premature deaths around the world.
Illicit drug users are mostly ADDICTS they need the drugs to enable them to function.
Don't you think that the drug dealing gangsters will get jobs at Asda's when their source of income is cut off? I think not ,they are more likely to commit crimes such as armed robberies, human trafficking is very lucrative as is the kidnapping of V.I.P's.
In answer to you're question No I do not agree.
Crime figures of more violent crimes would go up.
2007-03-11 03:08:29 · answer #7 · answered by st.abbs 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I believe dealers and users need to be punished just as severe. I've seen allot of users become dealers, users that are caught and just given probation and keep finding drugs to do.
2007-03-14 10:01:23 · answer #8 · answered by fvind44 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i dont condone drug use....but there is a hypocrisy here not being addressed....you want to drug users to face severe penalties....well..what about those who use alcohol,or tobacco...is that ok? And i would have a small wager...that you yourself are a user of drugs..i.e Alcohol or tobacco And of course...its ok for the government to recieve vast revenue resulting from the taxation of alcohol and tobacco...and seemingly easy for people like you to totally swallow anything that you read in the papers or sky news....Oh you will turn a blind eye to the damage done by alcohol and tobacco,but shout about drug use....i dont think so,its not nazi germany we live in....
2007-03-12 17:28:09 · answer #9 · answered by stef8705 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i'm 25 and that i myself do no longer care what drugs different persons use. I propose in the event that they smoke pot i myself see no longer something incorrect with that. I somewhat have in no way as quickly as ever heard of a pot head having a pot lab that blows up or something like that. yet i'm completely against meth. i've got lost too many acquaintances on that crap and if somebody ever further that around my young infants i might finally end up going to reformatory for homicide
2016-10-18 02:35:25 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends. Do they steal to fund their habit, are they someone who would blithely attack an elderly woman and leave with the words "i need the money for drugs"? If so then they deserve nothing but a sound beating.
If they just use the drugs, and don't commit crimes to do so, then they are of no interest to me.
2007-03-11 14:34:03 · answer #11 · answered by badshotcop 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋