Tapes Reveal That George Smoked Pot

Remove all ads!

Excellent reponse, Darkwolf. I was also outraged when Clinton and Janet Reno attacked the state of California for its legalization of weed for those whom it might help in medical situations. I found the Clinton administration's hardline stance on that issue quite absurd considering that Clinton himself was the last one to complain over fudging on "vice."

But we are agreed on this issue and I'm glad you responded in an intelligent and well-thought out manner, rather than just blowing it off. Even though we don't often agree on the issues, it's another reason why you have my respect.

 

I have to second Darkwolf on this. There are two types of convictions for drugs. The first is simple posession, and the latter is posession with intent to distribute. Simple posession is a misdemeanor, meaning it is extremely unlikely that you are going to jail.

Posession with the intent to distribute is a felony, and the obvious distinction being made here is we are targeting the dealers more than the casual users. As a side note in response to Darkwolf's comment on the number of 8-balls (or whatever) needed to convict for posession with the intent to distribute, the answer is: There is no set quantity. The simple reason behind this is what happens if you bust a dealer who has just made numerous sales and therefore doesn't have much in the way of drugs on his person? What you have to prove is that there is some drug residue and he had the ability to package and distribute drugs. If you bust into his apartment, find boxes filled with baggies and twist ties, along with a precision scale for measuring small quantities of substances, then you don't need him necessarily to have 10 pounds of pot in his house to convict of him posession with intent to distribute.

The sad part of all of this is that most of the time, even first time offenders of posession with intent to distribute don't go to jail. They usually get off with probation. Second, if convicted and sentences to probation, you have to fully divulge how it was that you caught that person. Anyone who wants to go back and continue to deal drugs therefore knows some of the police's tricks, and you can bet they won't make that first mistake again. We just made a more intelligent drug dealer.

 

Not much I can add to what Aldeth said, other than to say that the Gov't has tried going after users, tried going after pushers, tried going after suppliers/distributors, and tried going after the supply, and none of it works.

This is an instance where punishment just doesn't work, it isn't a sufficient deterrent.

One other thing, IMO rich kids are more likely to receive better treatment if they have a problem, and are less likely to end up dealing to pay for their drugs, so I would argue that drug use is harder on the poor than it is on the rich. There is no telling what would have happened had GW been from a poor family. He might have quit with no issues, or he might of been busted as a dealer for while trying to support an addiction, or he could have been somewhere in between. He definitely has no room to be holier than thou about it (which sometimes I feel he is, and certainly the Republican Party is).

 

I think that America has IMO, and there I speak as a lawyer, a too positivistic attitude toward law.

With that I mean that a tough law is sold as a solution to a problem, and that people buy in on that. Of course we have that in Europe and Germany too, but not as extreme.

IMO too much emphasis is given on punishment of the perpetrators, the symptoms, over actually dealing with the problem itself.

Don't get me wrong: That cannot and must not be a scale for dealing with crimes like murder, child molestation or rape, but it certainly can and should be a scale for drug abuse (and not not sale or trafficking).

Some kid is picked up for possession and/ or consumption of crack or coke or heroin and may go to jail for a year or two for that - as if the jailtime is going to change anything about the situation of general drug (ab)use - or even adequately reflecting the damage the kid dealt to society. It's simply about punishment.

Just as one can be too liberal on crime, one can overcriminalise social problems - the US jails are probably not the world's largest and most strongly inhabitated because Americans are more criminal and more evil than we Euros. I strongly doubt that.
Sure, locking them up is sort of a solution, too. But I doubt it does anything to the problem: With arrests and conviction rates up drug use still doesn't go away, it just moves out of sight.

People are willing and going to change their state of mind. Drug use is a fact of life and the merry 'Just say no!' of the Reagan years just like the zero-tolerance policy today probably can't and consequently don't change that a yota. It's simply unrealistic.

It is easy to see a drug *addict* as a perpetrator, and as easily forgotten that at the same time he's a victim of a crime, too.

I feel that Europe's more liberal drug policy in comparison was more successful. Generally speaking, Europe emphasises harm reduction over prohibition:

While I have my doubts about the sense of allowing drug use under state oversight, that approach is probably more realistic than just banning drugs outright and criminalising everything associated with it, use included and state: 'We are tough on drugs, you citizens be calm now!'

There are politicos who admit to have used drugs in their past. Today they promote tough laws that, if applied on them, would have f*cked them up for life, and might have well resulted in a gang rape and an AIDS infection and their premature death - and in best case, their unelectability as felons convicted for drug related crimes.

Nevertheless they vote and call for tougher laws - and it is easy to see why: Felons have no lobby and if people get raped in jail that's a non-issue because it's bad people doing bad stuff to other bad people. Just as if the state had no mandate to protect them ... forgotten is that it is *the state's*, not only privilege but task, and the state's privilege and task alone, not only to do the punishment but to maintain order and to hold up the law in jail, too - and that involves preventing crimes and protecting the victims.

They are just populists who promote imaginary feelgood solutions that have popular appeal, only to not be denounced as being 'soft on drugs'.

Sadly, by tendency the 'tough-on-drugs' part of the democrats, and that's iirc the majority of who of them has managed to get into D.C. business, are probably worse here because they are under constant rightwing attack for being 'liberal' and seem to feel they have to prove their electorate that they can out-right the right wing, forsaking what they stand for - irresponsibly depriving the society of a necessary discussion for the sake of mainstream convenience and 'electability'. They are AWOL here because the GOP isn't going to adress this unless hell freezes over.
Rightwingers with a drug past are only hypochritical and cynical here, and not suicidal, too.

But I guess that's the public climate in a country that fights wars on nouns, like *drugs* and other abstact evils ...

 

By the way, can someone tell me more about the 3-strike rule in the USA and how it applies to drugs? It might be interested in the discussion and I don't think I'm very well acquainted with its application here.

 

@ Ragusa,

It is extremely unlikely, and may not even be possible in most states for a person to go to jail for a year or two for simple possession of drugs, especially so if it is his first conviction. Drug possession isn't even a felony in the U.S. - it's a misdemeanor. The felony is "possession with the intent to distribute" which targets dealers.

@ The Shaman - The general "3 strikes and you're out" rule is if you are convicted of three felonies you can be sentenced to life in prison. As I stated above, felonies are considered the most reprehensible of crimes one can commit. Examples would include things like murder, rape, assault, etc. As it applies to drug use, only "possession with the intent to distribute" is a felony. Below felonies you have misdemeanors, which can cause a jail sentence, but usually not, especially if it was your first offense. Possession of drugs is a misdeamor, if you can reasonably prove that the person in possession with the drug had a quantity that would suggest personal use. Finally, there are summary offenses, which never carry jail time. These things can be as low as traffic tickets.