🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <l5ujs3d635kiissqhsrtkdh8fp8vjnbcc7@4ax.com>,
 wbyeats@ireland.com wrote:

> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 17:14:09 -0600, Al <albert.finney000@geemail.coom>
> wrote:
> 
> >In article <7bejs3dd83amnevp5gcp69b03tduc1od9k@4ax.com>,
> > wbyeats@ireland.com wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 13:57:42 -0600, Al <albert.finney000@geemail.coom>
> >> wrote:
> >> 
> >> >In article <ou1js35cguc9gu9gjskhk3nu0acbh8pkq8@4ax.com>,
> >> > wbyeats@ireland.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 19:33:35 -0600, Al <albert.finney000@geemail.coom>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> >In article <c46gs3di7e4dggt92kn6ur57ate695c9oq@4ax.com>,
> >> >> > user@nospam.nul wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 06:56:07 -0600, Al 
> >> >> >> <albert.finney000@geemail.coom>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >In article <cljfs3dd52teo0ri1kbo84urdusl14l9nm@4ax.com>,
> >> >> >> > user@nospam.nul wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> 1 in 100 adults now in prison
> >> >> >> >> 2,319,258 Americans behind bars in 2008, most of any nation
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Now Bush is making people commit crimes.
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> Cute.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It was your header.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Now, see if you can be equally cute pondering why the US
> >> >> >> imprisons more people on a percentage basis than any other "free" or
> >> >> >> communist country on earth.  Use extra cuteness.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >My guess is that law enforcement is becoming more efficient through 
> >> >> >technology, combined with the influx of people and the disaster of 
> >> >> >LBJ's 
> >> >> >Great Society.
> >> >> 
> >> >> And you be ........... totally wrong. The crime rate is not up much.
> >> >> What has happened is a combo of longer sentences with no parole, 3
> >> >> strikes laws, and the idiocy of imprisoning minor drug offenders. Why
> >> >> don't you read the article before adding your inane comments? Or can't
> >> >> you read?
> >> >
> >> >I cannot read, sorry, but actually the crime rate has been declining for 
> >> >years, decades.
> >> 
> >> I could tell you can't read - so why write? Recently crime has had a
> >> slight upturn.
> >
> >Serious crime has been declining since the 80's, regardless of any 
> >slight momentary upturns.
> 
> I'm sure I could go back another decade and show an upturn but that's
> not what I said. I said recent.

Recent meaning what. Hours, days?
   
> >> >I wonder if there's any correlation, or as the NYT wonders at least once 
> >> >a year "if crime is down, why are we building more prisons?"
> >> >So puzzling.
> >> 
> >> What don't you understand about the reasons posted above. They are the
> >> exact same reasons that analysis came up with for the increased prison
> >> population.
> >
> >The fewer laws you have, the fewer lawbreakers, but who gets let out?
> 
> Well duh! You let out the minor drug offenders, change the laws, or
> build more prisons - take your pick.

A combination seems reasonable, but not based on the assumption that 
every drug charge is by nature bogus. That would grant inebriates an 
unprecedented validity.

The great majority of those imprisoned for drug crimes are guilty of 
more than mere possession/use. The billions of dollars in criminal 
enterprise ensnare players on all levels, and to assume our prisons are 
full of casual offendors is misrepresentation.

Most people in state or federal prisons are for distribution, not simple 
possession. Those in for simple possession are there based on a relevant 
criminal history, not the possession alone.

Having lived under a policy which had the state maintaining requirements 
of the addicted, I'm not against that, it does reduce crime. However, 
this is predicated on lack of other, possibly related, criminal activity.

The great upsurge in crack-related violence is not from addicts/users, 
it is due to organized criminal distribution.