Drop the Rock

"Few public safety initiatives have failed as badly and for as long as the Rockefeller Drug Laws."

That's how New York Governor David Paterson described New York State's drug laws -- and he's absolutely right.

Since the Rockefeller laws were passed over thirty-five years ago by then governor Nelson Rockefeller -- establishing harsh mandatory sentences with no judicial discretion for the sale or possession of relatively small amounts of drugs -- they have proven to be wasteful, ineffective, unjust and racially biased.

Reformers -- including the Correctional Association of New York which I serve as a board member -- have been fighting the draconian policy for 25 years. The effort intensified with the Drop the Rock campaign that began in 1999. There is now a coalition which includes faith groups, allies in the criminal justice field, service providers who run alternatives to incarceration, communities in Harlem, families and individuals directly affected by the laws, the public defender community, labor unions, college and law student groups.

Now it seems the stars have aligned to create an opening for bold reform.

First, the fiscal crisis and consequent state budget gap -- New York faces a $15 billion budget deficit-- have highlighted the exorbitant costs of imprisoning nonviolent, low-level drug offenders and the need for smarter, more effective alternatives. Political leaders are under pressure to cut costs that don't involve needed services like housing, education and health care. New York residents and policy makers have also seen how the laws have failed to impact addiction or the amount of drugs available on the streets. Finally, for the first time, three key leaders are all Democrats who have publicly supported major reform: Governor Paterson, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, and Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith.

"The Rockefeller Drug Laws are and always have been a huge catastrophe for this state and absolutely must be reformed…." Speaker Silver recently said. "I am proud to tell you… that this year – 2009 – is the year we will finally enact real reform of the Rockefeller Drug Laws."

At the heart of the issue is the fact that the drug laws take away the discretion of judges to set sentencing or alternatives to imprisonment. The prosecutor decides what the charge is and upon conviction the judge must adhere to mandatory sentencing. It doesn't matter whether a person is a first-time nonviolent offender or an addict, nor do character or circumstances enter the equation. Equally absurd -- the felony is determined by the weight of the drug in possession at the time of arrest rather than the role a person plays in a drug transaction. Major dealers know not to carry drugs and the system also promotes racial bias.

"That guilt is determined by the weight of drugs in possession provides an incentive for law enforcement to focus on particular populations -- that's low-income people of color," said Robert Gangi, Executive Director of the Correctional Association. "Because if you do drug sweeps or buy-and-bust operations in those communities you're likely to catch up in your law enforcement net… a lot of people with small amounts of drugs on them. And then you can indict and convict them on drug offenses that will mandate a prison sentence…. To use a crude expression -- the system gets more bang for its buck, in the sense of return on the effort."

The result? Despite the fact that studies show that the majority of people who use and sell drugs in New York State (and the nation) are white, African-Americans and Latinos comprise nearly 90 percent of the drug offenders in New York prisons; whites account for under 10 percent.

Caitlin Dunklee, Coordinator of the Drop the Rock Campaign, said: "In low income communities of color drugs are dealt in the open air -- as opposed to where it's harder to prosecute folks behind closed doors, in places like Wall Street, The Hamptons, etc."

It costs New York State approximately $1.5 billion to build the jails that hold 12,000 drug offenders, and the annual operating expense to incarcerate them is $525 million. Nearly 50% of these drug offenders are locked up for the three lowest level felonies involving minute drug amounts. (For example, 1,203 people are in jail for possessing ½ gram of cocaine.) All told, repealing the Rockefeller Drug Laws would save the state approximately $270 million per year.

Adding to the outrage, study after study shows that drug treatment is more effective than incarceration in reducing drug abuse and recidivism -- while also producing tremendous cost savings. It costs $44,000 to keep an inmate in New York state prison for one year. That same individual could be housed in a residential drug treatment program for $17,000-$21,000 per year, or treated for $2,700- $4,500 as an outpatient. But under the Rockefeller Drug Laws a judge doesn't have the discretion needed to go that route. Nor can a judge sentence a non-addict who succumbs to economic hardship and gets involved in the drug trade to alternative vocational or educational programs. As the New York Times put it in a recent editorial: "The system, which has been imitated throughout the country, filled the jails to bursting, while doing nothing to curb the drug trade."

Dunklee offered an alternative vision for a more just system. "We are pushing for broad judicial discretion that takes into account a person's history of addiction as well as the other social and economic causes of becoming involved in the drug trade," she said.

New York residents can do something to increase the momentum for real reform right now. Sign the petition to repeal the Rockefeller Drug Laws. And on March 10, participate in Drop the Rock Advocacy Day in Albany, meet with legislators, and advocate for a more just system.

"We are intent on keeping the pressure on, and one of our main strategies right now is to make the Advocacy Day as big and as bad as possible," Gangi said. "This is a day when we can gather hundreds of people in Albany, present our petitions -- we currently have over 25,000 signatures and we aim to get 35,000 signatures -- and get a lot of press coverage. This is as a day which will enable us and our allies -- both in the community and the political process -- to focus on the issue and promote it. And it's timely -- there are negotiations as we speak between the three key political leaders…. [for] meaningful reform. And we're very close to having the three political leaders represented that day… to reinforce their determination on this issue. And that could be a major political advance."

"It's also important because we're not only talking about changing the Rockefeller Drug Laws," Dunklee said, "but we're bringing up hundreds of people from New York City's low-income communities of color to advocate on the issue. And by doing that we are changing the way that policies are made."

It's time for a saner, smarter approach to criminal justice. It's time to Drop the Rock.

Comments (43)

1. Good call.

   As an aside, I also like the optimism in the new Beat the Devil column at The Nation.

   Excerpt:

   "Circumstances will in all likelihood push Obama's government to the left, just as they did to FDR's when orthodoxy failed. The left should not be shy about pressing the challenge out of some misguided notion of preserving a polite progressive consensus."

   In the midst of what looks to be a spiraling crisis of perhaps unforeseeably epic proportions it's a very good thing to be looking for positive opportunities.

   We'll be needing that kind of optimism none too soon I'm afraid.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/19/2009 @ 5:30pm

2. its time to apply some good science, social and hard, to examine the issue and decide exactly which drugs should even BE illegal, especially considering the fact that our national drug of choice, alcohol, is about as potentially destructive as it gets...

   then i advocate going after the evil gangs and syndicates who poison our neighborhoods with a vengeance...label them criminal domestic terrorists and wipe them out. hopefully they will put up a fight so we can save money on trials and incarcerations for them too...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/19/2009 @ 5:33pm

3. Heavy sentences for small-time users, or truly `small' dealers, are certainly questionable due to the costs of incarceration and treatments.

   On the other hand, I suspect in New York, Rudy actually used the Rock to clean up the city.....let's not kid ourselves, there are major overlaps between druggies and criminals!

   Posted by Happy at 02/19/2009 @ 5:37pm

4. Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/19/2009 @ 5:33pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   grrr, kill, kill

   you never miss an opportunity, do you?

   Posted by emile duBois at 02/19/2009 @ 5:45pm

5. Oh, beautiful, look what the cat dragged in.....it's "Happy" the Clown.

   Just wanted you to know I sent you a love letter straight from my heart, Happy. It's on the previous Editors Cut blog thread.

   Enjoy!

   :D

   P.S. Ibble, or somebody, please forward my communique to the Hapless One. He'll be delighted, I'm sure of it.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/19/2009 @ 5:46pm

6. you never miss an opportunity, do you?

   Posted by emile duBois at 02/19/2009 @ 5:45pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   nope. ever watched "gangland" on the history channel?

   there's ultimately only one option for old yeller...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/19/2009 @ 5:49pm

7. Oh, beautiful, look what the cat dragged in.....it's "Happy" the Clown.

   Just wanted you to know I sent you a love letter straight from my heart, Happy. It's on the previous Editors Cut blog thread.

   Enjoy!

   :D

   P.S. Ibble, or somebody, please forward my communique to the Hapless One. He'll be delighted, I'm sure of it.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/19/2009 @ 5:46pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   hey HAP! you got ol' B_KOOL on iggy?

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/19/2009 @ 5:52pm

8. I hope that we can finally get the legal system to recognize what has been recognized by the medical community for a long time. Addiction is a disease (As is alcoholism). Science has proven this fact many times over. The addicted are the victims of this disease and should be treated as such. We ( my partner who is an attorney and myself) hope to have a book in print in the near future that will instruct the legal community in how to try these cases as a disease and not as a moral issue.

   Posted by kapar72 at 02/19/2009 @ 5:56pm

9. Posted by kapar72 at 02/19/2009 @ 5:56pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   keep up the good work. this country's obsession with persecution petty drug users is morally despicable and creates god knows how many criminals rather than getting them off the streets, clogging up our courts and prisons where REAL nasties should be.

   good work you are involved in there. keep it up.

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/19/2009 @ 6:01pm

10. nope. ever watched "gangland" on the history channel? there's ultimately only one option for old yeller... Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/19/2009 @ 5:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    you are easily led by propaganda, which is what these shows are.

    it's quite cheap of you to advocate draconian punishments from the safety of your keyboard.

    everyone uses drugs. gangbangers, cops, judges, D.A.s

    violent people who use drugs, are violent first, drug users second. we have laws against violence, which I do not oppose.

    everyone, I repeat everyone, is entitled to due process, even Charlie Manson and Jeffrey Dahmer.

    I have been mugged, razor at the jugular. my son has been mugged, often by the police, who call it stop and frisk. unconstitutional for sure.

    since 9/11 the cops have gone crazy, trampling on our rights. Bloomberg takes the lead on this. I have never and will never vote for that autocrat.

    to you, Ib, I recommend that you look to your humanity.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/19/2009 @ 6:15pm

11. Ib, your way has been proven to be singularly ineffective.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/19/2009 @ 6:18pm

12. to you, Ib, I recommend that you look to your humanity.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/19/2009 @ 6:15pm | ignore this person | warn this person Ib, your way has been proven to be singularly ineffective.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/19/2009 @ 6:18pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    bless you, pure soul.

    but i also am a firsthand witness on a daily basis to the destruction wrought upon our country by vicious, violent, and heavily armed gangs.

    has my way been proved ineffective? nobody's really tried my way. i'm in favor of complete decriminalization of some drugs as well as decriminalization of petty drug use in most cases regardless.

    in terms of my humanity i eschewed that long ago. in fact, my draconian solution to the worst and most corrupting, vicious, murderous, toxic elements of society is actually pretty darned human if you think of it.

    societal triage, i call it. for every old yeller we might save, how many potential old yellers are lost? for folks living in poverty gangs and criminals kill FAR FAR more than those awful, horrible cops.

    ever will polite society need hard men)and women) to break heads and put old yellers down, and ever will polite society hypocritically villify those hard men and women while it enjoys the peace and security they bring that enables the luxurious politeness and "humanity" which villifies the protectors...

    at least i'm honest in my wickedness and a-hypocritical in my anonymity.

    not that i think you a hypocrite, JR.

    you are a pure soul.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/19/2009 @ 6:35pm

13. ever will polite society need hard men)and women) to break heads and put old yellers down, and ever will polite society hypocritically villify those hard men and women while it enjoys the peace and security they bring that enables the luxurious politeness and "humanity" which villifies the protectors...

    paging Jack Nicholson.

    in my city cops kill quite a few innocents.

    let's just say that my position is perhaps more nuanced than yours.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/19/2009 @ 6:46pm

14. to characterize humans was dogs is beyond the pale. they are not animals. they are human.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/19/2009 @ 6:48pm

15. of course I applaud your sane drug policy.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/19/2009 @ 6:54pm

16. in my city cops kill quite a few innocents.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/19/2009 @ 6:46pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    not suprising considering the number of guilty walking around. nobody is perfect.

    -----------------------------------------

    to characterize humans was dogs is beyond the pale. they are not animals. they are human.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/19/2009 @ 6:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    one could make the case that all humans are animals, one of the tenets of non-theistic satanism to which i adhere.

    where i differ with them is that humans are ALSO more than animals.

    but sometimes as a rresult of any number of circumstances, some humans do indeed devolve into ravenous, murderous, pain bringing animals...

    who cannot be fixed.

    and their very existance plants seeds of evil in the hearts and minds of the young and impressionable. and their violent, evil, irresponsible nactions serve to hasten the devolution of others to such status as well.

    i have been lucky enough to have never been mugged, and despite the many issues i have with my home territory...

    i don't ever want to have to expect that i will get mugged.

    and i firmly believe that this poisonous crimonal culture is indeed spreading far beyond the bounds of places which have endured this bullshit for far too long themselves...

    no, JR, no problem whatsoever with draconian measures directed at draconian evil. nope, not at all.

    again, my suggestion is not directed at everyone who commits a crime of passion in the heat of the moment, even a violent crime of passion. its directed at criminal organizations who are a direct threat to the safety of our nation's neighborhoods and who are as heavily armed as some small nations.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/19/2009 @ 7:00pm

17. its directed at criminal organizations who are a direct threat to the safety of our nation's neighborhoods and who are as heavily armed as some small nations.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/19/2009 @ 7:00pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    any non governmental organization that is heavily armed as these groups are and who regularly uses such weaponry to commit crimes and spread misery should be considered armed insurrectionists and dealt with as such.

    and hard working, otherwise law abiding, tax paying, pot smokers should be left alone and allowed to purchase their drug of choice without fear of being sent to jail forever because of the ignorant and wasteful puritanical stupidity of our most fascist anti-drug crusading morons...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/19/2009 @ 7:13pm

18. hey HAP! you got ol' B_KOOL on iggy?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/19/2009 @ 5:52pm

    Take another look what what you `dragged in' on his behalf, and you'll see why I don't waste any time on him....besides, he's the lowest of the low among Libs....a f*&king academic poisoning young minds!

    I'm amazed he's still fascinated w/me.....LOL!

    Posted by Happy at 02/19/2009 @ 8:02pm

19. OR... outlaw alcohol.

    Posted by winyahn at 02/19/2009 @ 9:03pm

20. Anybody think our local ditto-head, SJCHER, will show up on this thread?

    with an "explanation" for why it's "totally differrent" with Limbaugh and his drug addiction and the local crack-head?

    Posted by Mask at 02/19/2009 @ 9:38pm

21. not suprising considering the number of guilty walking around. nobody is perfect.

    this is pretty glib.

    who watches the watchers? that goes back to Plato.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/19/2009 @ 9:41pm

22. let's not kid ourselves, there are major overlaps between druggies and criminals!

    Posted by Happy at 02/19/2009 @ 5:37pm

    not in palm beach, of course.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/19/2009 @ 9:53pm

23. let's not kid ourselves, there are major overlaps between druggies and criminals!

    Posted by Happy at 02/19/2009 @ 5:37pm

    not in palm beach, of course.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/19/2009 @ 9:53pm

    Can you be so sure?

    Palm Beach is high-rent, high-priced drugs & hookers....Client #9 sorts! And where do their money come from? Maybe Wall St.?

    Posted by Happy at 02/19/2009 @ 10:31pm

24. let's not kid ourselves, there are major overlaps between druggies and criminals!

    Posted by Happy at 02/19/2009 @ 5:37pm

    not in palm beach, of course.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/19/2009 @ 9:53pm

    Can you be so sure?

    Palm Beach is high-rent, high-priced drugs & hookers....Client #9 sorts! And where do their money come from? Maybe Wall St.?

    Posted by Happy at 02/19/2009 @ 10:31pm

    and maybe from the eib radio network.....

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/19/2009 @ 11:27pm

25. and maybe from the eib radio network.....

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/19/2009 @ 11:27pm

    Silly, Rush gets his prescribed...by high-priced doctors...hey, maybe he's Client #1...hehehe!

    Posted by Happy at 02/19/2009 @ 11:29pm

26. Say, FZ....

    With Alberta's boom dialing back, a lot....today's WSJ's main article is on Ft. McMurray, lonnnnnng but informative....is your nephew hanging in there?

    I'll check back in the morning!

    Posted by Happy at 02/19/2009 @ 11:31pm

27. to be honest, hap, i haven't talked to my BC brother in a while.

    i'll give him a call tomorrow....

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/19/2009 @ 11:48pm

28. The real penalty of being caught with an illicit substance has a lifetime of consequences. Every drug charge is a federal crime that requires FBI fingerprinting and a criminal record. Whether the arrestee goes to prison or not, they are released back onto the streets with a limited chance of finding a job and most likely going to be living in a neighborhood where drugs are present. If the arrestee goes to jail he/she might make better connections or learn about new "hustles" to support their habit upon release. Modern technology has basically brought back the scarlet letter.

    Posted by whistlinwill at 02/20/2009 @ 12:15am

29. then i advocate going after the evil gangs and syndicates who poison our neighborhoods with a vengeance...label them criminal domestic terrorists and wipe them out. hopefully they will put up a fight so we can save money on trials and incarcerations for them too...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/19/2009 @ 5:33pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Scarey, but we agree on that! They could use that kind of law and order in Arizona right now where mexican drug cartel and gangs are taking over with murder kidnapping etc. Fire any police who actually bring the scum in and the problem will end!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 02/20/2009 @ 01:41am

30. What is really funny is when advocates say "everybody is using drugs" as justifying their own usage and use in society. You can't smoke cigarettes here but shoot up with whatever you want is the rational of fools!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 02/20/2009 @ 01:43am

31. Well folks, here goes. As a true conservative, I find this "war on drugs" a complete waste of time and money. Did we not learn anything from prohibition? Legalize the drugs, tax them, and take the criminal element out of the equation. Control it as a business. Those who think or say it will be easier for minors to get drugs are not living in the real world. They are getting them now BECAUSE there is no regulation. Case in point, a teenager cannot walk into a liquor store and purchase alcohol of any kind. If an attempt is made with a false ID, that's illegal.

    Yes, we have issues with alcohol and the problems associated with alcoholism, but what we don't have is people getting shot and killed over alcohol and alcohol deals that have gone bad. We don't have a problem with the Mexican or Columbian alcohol lords. We did away with the Capone gang when prohibition was repealed. They were out of business so-to-speak. It's time people.

    Posted by fram at 02/20/2009 @ 06:02am

32. It's time people. Posted by fram at 02/20/2009 @ 06:02am | ignore this person | warn this person

    yes it is.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/20/2009 @ 10:39am

33. Jail is expensive.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 02/20/2009 @ 2:42pm

34. Even my right-wing coworkers are grumbling about the marijuana laws. The thinking is that it should be legal and heavily taxed. Strange talk coming from McCain voters: More pot. More taxes. I guess the bush crime syndicate went so far beyond the pale that even former neo-cons are scared straight now. I oh so wish libertarians could actually live in a libertarian world, but they would be scared straight just making it to work the first morning. It wouldn't take 8 years of abuse and total political and economic ruin to make the point. Anyways, we have much bigger fish to fry.

    Posted by Milhaus at 02/20/2009 @ 10:15pm

35. you can't tax reefer.

    anyone can grow it.......

    (not that i am, nsa).

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/20/2009 @ 11:41pm

36. you can't tax reefer.

    anyone can grow it.......

    (not that i am, nsa).

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/20/2009 @ 11:41pm -------------

    But if you could buy 5 joints of great sinsemillia from the corner store for $10, would you bother?

    Sort of like growing your own tomatoes. It is fun but buying them from the store is more convenient.

    The price, quality and variety would be driven by competiton.

    Posted by Irmanator at 02/21/2009 @ 01:14am

37. you can't tax reefer.

    they have already done it. the gov't here has been issuing tax stamps.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/21/2009 @ 08:55am

38. "No taxation without representation" was the rally cry of advocates of American independence in the eighteenth century. Today, tens of thousands of cannabis consumers utter a similar cry over the selective and inappropriate enforcement of illicit drug taxes.

    In twenty US states, those who possess cannabis or other illegal drugs are legally required to purchase and affix state-issued stamps onto his or her contraband. The total cost of the tax is generally determined by the quantity of contraband possessed. Unlike typical criminal statutes prohibiting the possession and sale of controlled substances, drug tax stamp laws primarily assess financial penalties on the defendant for noncompliance. On occasion, criminal sanctions may also be imposed.

    Although nearly half of all US states have marijuana tax stamp laws on the books, few citizens observe them. Most individuals are unaware that such laws exist in their state; others fear that complying with it will incriminate their behavior. Because of this widespread noncompliance, drug tax stamps – unlike so-called "sin taxes" on alcohol or tobacco – do not collect state tax revenue at the customer's "point of purchase." Rather, the legislative intent of drug tax laws is to impose an additional penalty – tax evasion – upon drug offenders after they are arrested and criminally charged with a drug violation.

    In some states such as Georgia, failure to comply with the state tax law may result in a nominal misdemeanor penalty. However, in other states such as Minnesota, failure to comply with the state's drug tax law may result in a defendant facing an additional fine of up to $14,000 and seven years in jail.

    from NORML

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/21/2009 @ 10:21am

39. The fact is: people from all walks of life use illegal drugs. Otherwise law-abiding and productive citizens are covering for violent people who would be standing out like a sore thumb without this coverage. The reason for this protection is the need to keep the supply lines open.

    If drugs were legal the general population would no longer need to "cover" violent people, and these violent people would be exposed for their true nature.

    The "war" on drugs is a failure. The profits have caused the drug lords to become more powerful than the police and even the military in Mexico.

    Wake Up! I wonder how much of our economic crisis is related to the laundering of drug money trough Wall Street. hmmmm

    Posted by Wiser19 at 02/21/2009 @ 11:13am

40. The "war" on drugs is a failure. The profits have caused the drug lords to become more powerful than the police and even the military in Mexico.

    Posted by Wiser19 at 02/21/2009 @ 11:13am

    And the profits of a perfectly chronic, super expensive non-war "war" - beyond political reach - also have caused the STATE to become more & more powerful.

    Posted by winyahn at 02/22/2009 @ 9:47pm

41. If we end the war on drugs a lot of cops would be out of work.

    The mexican drug gangs would be out of work

    All the government agencies, those coast guard helicopters and coastal interception boats... those are jobs that would be lost.

    Cops on duty wouldn't run into large stashes of cash that they would be tempted by.

    Lot's of money is dedicated to these agencies.

    ........................

    All the cash would stay here in the US; folks would buy other things with it.

    There would be no doubt about who is crossing the borders illegally, for the most part.

    People who procured drugs would not have to go to someone with a gun, a pit bull, and an attitude to 'score'.

    Kids would stop taking their grandma's blood pressure medicine to get high.

    Rush Limbaugh could get heroin legally.

    Posted by ficheye at 02/23/2009 @ 2:37pm

42. How much of the resurgence of the Taliban in Afganistan can be attributed to the billions of dollars in profit from the illeagal opium trade?

    As we found in Iraq, cold hard cash buys loyalty today, and is for sale to the highest bidder.

    Even members of our own government have been using illeagal drug profits to finace covert operations.

    check it out:

    The Secret Government: The Constitution in Crisis, by Bill Moyers

    Posted by Wiser19 at 02/24/2009 @ 10:37am

43. We can stop much of the gang involvement by decriminalizing drug use and making drugs for sale at low prices, just like they were available before the pure food and drug laws. For hard core addicts, give them free drugs. If somebody wants to get addicted to heroin, that's his business. If he wants to drop the addiction, that's his business too. If the drugs kill him, that's his business. I say give these cokeheads and meth addicts all they want and let them kill themselves, since that's what they seem to want anyway. They won't need to rob and burglarize to make money for drugs if we just give them away. Doing so will put drug gangs, cartels, pushers, etc out of business because in fact heroin, cocaine, meth, etc can all be produced at very reasonable prices. It is the illegal traffic that drives the price up.

    Many of the comments above are right on point. All sorts of people use drugs. Right now, law enforcement goes after low handing fruit - which is exactly what one would expect.

    There will be real resistance to a reductdion in jail sentences by the commercial penal industry. It has become massive and profits sumptuously from the incarceration of low level drug offenders. But it is time to put dangerous criminals away, not idiots who self inflict and are forced to turn to crime to pay for a habit.

    Posted by jsens at 02/25/2009 @ 09:20am