Does anyone else believe that we take drug charges to seriously in this country?

Question

What I mean is that I was raised if you break the law you should be punished and I used to think Ill of people who did drugs and was glad when they went behind bars. Then I went to college and realized that my parents were wrong.

An example is the thing that happened in CONN. Our prisons are so over crowded with a lot of inmates (especially females) put in there on drug offenses. This forces parole boards to let some people out early and stuff like this happens.

We had to do interviews for my criminal justice class. And one of the people was a girl and her parents were kind of wealthly and once a month they would have a herione party. They would send the daughter to a grandparents house and have the party. Well the feds busted it one time and sent both parents to jail. The grandparents soon died and the girl got sent to a foster home and was sexually abused there. Was this worth it? Because the parents did a drug one weekend a month to ruin a whole family?

Almost everyone we interviewed had similar circumstances. One mom lost her child because her boyfriend left pot in her car and when she got pulled over the police found it and she got sentenced to 5 years in jail!!!! Not only is this a waste of tax money and prison space it destroys families. I believe that if someone wants to destroy their body with drugs then who cares. There are some people that say well were protecting the children. That is not the case most of the time. If the child is being neglected because of it then yes the parents should be arrested for child neglect not drug usage. So are we protecting them and their familes by sending them to prison for 10 years? Or are we destroying families like that? What is your opnion?

Answer 1

I agree with Charity G. After all, cigs and alcohol are legal. I think legalization should depend on how dangerous the drug is and how addictive it is. But as far as the others, I think it should be treated as a medical problem and dealt with through family and community channels, rather than the criminal justice system, which just takes petty criminals and turns them into serious lifers. Plus, I don't want my taxes wasted locking up potheads for 20 years while rapists get off in 6 months.

Answer 2

No, I don't think we are taking drug charges too seriously. But jail sentences for people who have only enough drug on hand for personal use is not effective. We accept the use of drugs by others too casually. All street drugs are a problem. Each person who uses drugs causes expensive problems to others, not just themselves. I have heard the excuse, "as long as I'm not hurting anyone else, the government should butt out of my life." That's pure bologna.

The person who tried the single dose of marijuana had to buy it from someone, or a friend who gave it to them had to buy it. The person who bought it to sell for "personal use" was committing a crime. The police must pursue that drug seller. The cost of that pursuit is paid by local citizens who could have used that money for education, parks, and many other important uses -or return it to us.

The criminal who sells the drugs must either grow the marijuana him- or herself.or buy it from another supplier. The growth of marijuana causes many crimes to be committed, even murder. Fields of marijuana often get raided by those wanting to sell it, without having to grow it. The persons who planted the field defend their fields against the raiders by having an armed person, usually an illegal alien, there to run off, or kill any raiders. As the field matures, the growers come to harvest the field. When complete, the person hired to protect the field is murdered, to cut costs. Every drag of every marijuana cigarette carries that cost, and is part of creating the cost. So, if you just want a little recreational smoke, you are committing very serious crimes. Do you think the government should butt out of that?

This is just a simplified discussion of the effects of drugs. The illegal actions by drug users, sellers, and growers are actually much more complex, and expensive to society.

The five years for heroine use was not likely the only use the parents were caught for. They were very likely also charged with other crimes, including child abuse. You have to read the entire case to comment accurately on it, and how the arrest effected the child. It is terrible she suffered at the hands of others, but consider that heroine, an addictive drug, was not likely to be the only drug they used, and that they may have been going to become addicted to it in the very near future. There was something that led the police and authorities to the child's parents house. If the parents were being careful, the authorities might never have found out about the monthly parties. They did something that got the attention of police in the first place.

The next likely event to happen may have been the child's exposure to many very bad events in her own home, fairly soon. What happened to her at the foster home is inexcusable, but it may very well have less that what might have been coming in her own home at some time in the future.

In California, if someone is caught with enough drugs for personal use, the first time they are now sent to rehabilitation, not prison. They can do this three times before they are sent to prison. This may be good for many people, but only time will tell. Criminals who sell drugs still get the prison time they deserve. But it's not the system that destroys their families. It's the criminal. They are well aware of the law, and it's consequences, and still choose to sell the drugs.

Answer 3

People actually overdose on drugs. People do end up dead. Children end up being used for prostitution for their parents drug habits. So a wealthy family wants to abuse a very addictive drug like heroine occassionally, but their "little innocent need" isn't worth allowing the real victims of this drug to continue being hurt. It's not like this family wasn't aware that this was, in fact, illegal. This risk can, and does, have consequences. The mother that told you a single bag of pot was left by a boyfriend in her car and she got five years may have lied to you. You seem like a reasonably smart person yet for some reason you sound like it never occurred to you that convicted drug users are often liars. I know it makes me mad to learn that some one can lie to me with so little guilt, especially when lying to me would get them nothing and do them no good (in any situation). If you get access to these peoples actually public records (which you can publicly request from city and county police departments, you have to make a request from every city the person has had a conviction in to learn the extent of their crime histories) you may be amazed to find that these people probably had prior convictions and/or warnings they weren't telling you about. It sounds like you are a fortunate, intelligent, lucky person to be getting such a great education and being in a position to think about this subject critically. Because of that you probably haven't seen the severe victims of the drug problem, which number into the tens of thousands. The issue isn't being lax on those who break drug laws, it is finding a proper solution to getting the offenses to stop.

Answer 4

I even have been on the series end of those FBI stats and there's a pair of very deceptive stats. For starters while in accordance to the UCR (Uniformed Crime Reporting) "hispanic" is and ethnicity vs. a race. One as an occasion could be black or white hispanic. trouble-free adequate till in spite of the undeniable fact which you detect out that for some reason hispanic receives its very own type while it relatively is interior the sufferer column yet would be divided into black or white interior the suspect column. Why is that i'm thinking? yet another deceptive fact; gay, trans-gender, and different non race appropriate "hate crimes" categories are lumped in with "white." So is it precisely precise to assert that "whites" earnings from hate crime protections like others do? i'd say no longer. while gang rape, torture and homicide against a youthful white guy and lady via 5 blacks action in stay overall performance isn't a "hate crime" you could assume which you have no longer have been given any risk-free practices under those rules.

Answer 5

Perhaps if we brought back the "chain gang" type of prison we wouldn't have so many criminals in them.

If they hard to do HARD labor, instead of sitting in their cells, watching TV, and easy stuff, maybe more would NOT be repeat offenders, allowing more space for those druggies, who could serve their time, and hopefully reform their lives.

Just a thought, but I personally am tired of supporting all the criminals, some have it better than the homeless, something is WRONG with this picture...

Answer 6

Why not legalize all drugs but require the drug abuser to agree to never accept any form of social / financial support from govt or society, once they commit to drugs? I don't care if people choose to take drugs, provided they don't drive cars or risk others by their choice. The problem- the same ideology who wants to decriminalize drugs will the ones to force society to financially support the druggie, after they spiral to the lowest form of existence.

Answer 7

My opinion is don't use drugs and you have nothing to worry about. I don't think we take drug charges seriously enough. Dealers should be given long sentences, then maybe there wouldn't be as much available. The best way to deal with it is NOT USE.

Answer 8

The cost to society of our "war on drugs" has been much higher than any benefit derived from it.

My opinion is that we should decriminalize illicit drug use and treat the drug user.

Research shows that this is more effective and less costly both fiscally and sociologically than the present "war on drugs".

Answer 9

Yes, I don't see the point of locking up people guilty of drug offenses when murderers, rapists and other scum go free due to overcrowding. We should just let the junkies take responsibility and kill themselves, as long as they don't harm others or others' property.

Answer 10

I'd be o.k. with pot being legalized but am not sure about other drugs.