Morality and Law

[Marz Blak]

As to cocaine assertion, I recently visited a county jail for a research paper dealing with addiction, and its leads to criminal activity. Around 95 percent of the people that I talked to were there because of drug related crimes. They needed to support a habbit, so they stole and robbed. I also saw this with the intership that I did at a drug clinic. They all had stolen and committed other crimes to support their habit. The biggest drug I saw to cause this? Crack-cocaine. I can find statistics if you'd like, but... I can assure you that this is the case.

Of course if drug use is illegal by definition, anyone guilty of using drugs will be a criminal. And we know that a lot of people in jail are in jail for simple possession or distribution, not for crimes involving victims.

I've seen stats as high as 60+% at the federal level for the proportion of convicts strictly for drug offenses.

So you can't validly jump from saying '95% of the people in jail are in jail because of drug-related crimes' to the conclusion that 'they all stole and robbed to support their habit,' unless you are saying that an insignificant proportion of that 95% was in jail soley on drug possession or distribution charges. Is that what you're saying?

Based on what I know about the statutes under which most inmates were convicted, I'd be very surprised if this were the case.

 

[Phred]

Congress passes laws that they think are right and presumedly they think their choice is right because people voted for them. So if some group really gets out to vote and makes a big impact on the election, then can't that group expect that laws will be passed in accordance to how they would want?

Or if that's not clear... A lot of people seem to NOT want christian influence in the passing of laws. So if the christian group really gets out and elects all christian leaders, then shouldn't we expect laws to be passed that center around a christian morality? If we say no, that shouldn't happen, then haven't we just kicked democracy in the gut? Group A gets an official elected. That official will pass a law along moral lines of group A. And that seems to be accepted unless group A is christian (or presumedly some other religious group).

It worked for Adolf Hitler and the Nazis in Germany. They were elected you know... They went on to use their majority to ban the other parties and take absolute control... which the majority handed them on a platter. It's called the "tyranny of the majority" and it's something James Madison was very concerned about. It's one of the reasons we live in a republic, not a true democracy.

This seems to imply also that morals are relative. It may be wrong for christians, but not for other people. But if this is the case, then isn't it the same to say we're going to take ANY moral code from some group and force it on another?

Madison said, "Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority."

.​

 

[Dennis Moore]

As to cocaine assertion, I recently visited a county jail for a research paper dealing with addiction, and its leads to criminal activity. Around 95 percent of the people that I talked to were there because of drug related crimes. They needed to support a habbit, so they stole and robbed. I also saw this with the intership that I did at a drug clinic. They all had stolen and committed other crimes to support their habit. The biggest drug I saw to cause this? Crack-cocaine. I can find statistics if you'd like, but... I can assure you that this is the case.

See, that's why I specified "proof that the addiction would lead to crime regardless of the legality of the drug involved" in my post. I'm absolutely with you that addiction is a horrible thing. But a lot of the crimes committed in the name of drugs have less to do with use, and more to do with its illegal status.

Why rob a store in order to score? Because the illegal nature of the drugs keeps their costs sky high. If you've been paying $100 a hit, and you show up with $100, and the dealer says, "it's $300 a hit now," you will do anything to get that money. Why buy it from him, then? Because he's the only dealer you know, and you can't exactly report him for price-gouging. Why not seek treatment for your addiction? Because to do so is to admit to a crime. Thus the addiction goes untreated, gets worse, and drives the user to worse crimes as dealers take advantage of user by jacking up prices.

Yes, addiction can drive people to crime. Every year alcohol addicts beat their wives and drive while drunk. Why aren't we criminalizing alcohol, then?

You see my point?

The history of drugs in America, and why they are illegal, is a fascinating subject. But it has little to do with crime.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

Of course if drug use is illegal by definition, anyone guilty of using drugs will be a criminal. And we know that a lot of people in jail are in jail for simple possession or distribution, not for crimes involving victims.

I've seen stats as high as 60+% at the federal level for the proportion of convicts strictly for drug offenses.

So you can't validly jump from saying '95% of the people in jail are in jail because of drug-related crimes' to the conclusion that 'they all stole and robbed to support their habit,' unless you are saying that an insignificant proportion of that 95% was in jail soley on drug possession or distribution charges. Is that what you're saying?

Based on what I know about the statutes under which most inmates were convicted, I'd be very surprised if this were the case.

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/crime/
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/duc.htm

I hate using stats, because they really don't matter in the end.

But, I can from evidence around my own life, say that people who are addicted to drugs will commit crimes to support their habbit.

Of course, this doesn't mean that all people who do drugs will commit crimes. I'm know they don't. The point is though, as addiction sets in, it does become a fact. Anyone that uses drugs, has a great potential for addiction.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

See, that's why I specified "proof that the addiction would lead to crime regardless of the legality of the drug involved" in my post. I'm absolutely with you that addiction is a horrible thing. But a lot of the crimes committed in the name of drugs have less to do with use, and more to do with its illegal status.

Why rob a store in order to score? Because the illegal nature of the drugs keeps their costs sky high. If you've been paying $100 a hit, and you show up with $100, and the dealer says, "it's $300 a hit now," you will do anything to get that money. Why buy it from him, then? Because he's the only dealer you know, and you can't exactly report him for price-gouging. Why not seek treatment for your addiction? Because to do so is to admit to a crime. Thus the addiction goes untreated, gets worse, and drives the user to worse crimes as dealers take advantage of user by jacking up prices.

Yes, addiction can drive people to crime. Every year alcohol addicts beat their wives and drive while drunk. Why aren't we criminalizing alcohol, then?

You see my point?

The history of drugs in America, and why they are illegal, is a fascinating subject. But it has little to do with crime.

Alcohol is legal, because government makes money off of it. I do agree with a lot of what you are saying.

Besides marijuana and maybe ecstasy and acid, I do believe that that is the reason why they are illegal though. I honestly believe that. I may, of course be wrong.

 

[Marz Blak]

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/crime/
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/duc.htm

I hate using stats, because they really don't matter in the end.

But, I can from evidence around my own life, say that people who are addicted to drugs will commit crimes to support their habbit.

Of course, this doesn't mean that all people who do drugs will commit crimes. I'm know they don't. The point is though, as addiction sets in, it does become a fact. Anyone that uses drugs, has a great potential for addiction.

I don't really want to argue this, because it's pretty obvious that drug use is bad, and is certainly a factor in a lot of (non-drug-related) crime. But I don't think that we need to overstate the case either.

E.g., would drug use constitute such an incentive for property crime if the contraband nature of the drugs didn't lead to their prices being wildly inflated?

In how many drug-related crimes are the drug dealers the victims, by virtue of the fact they have a lot of money and can't exactly go to the police for protection?

Sure, drug and alcohol use can be a cause for violent behavior, but it can be an effect as well, troubled, violence-prone people being in all likelihood more likely to use drugs and alcohol, don't you think?

I think that we need to keep things like this in mind as well in thinking about what a rational drug policy would be.

 

[Dennis Moore]

Alcohol is legal, because government makes money off of it.

Yes, but they could make a ton off of marijuana, or X.

Besides marijuana and maybe ecstasy and acid, I do believe that that is the reason why they are illegal though. I honestly believe that. I may, of course be wrong.

The criminalization of "hard" drugs had as much to do with racist and classist fears as it did with legitimate health or public saftey concerns. Concaine in particular, IIRC, had to do with fears of the "drug-crazed Negro" raping all the white women ... cocaine was used as a cheap stimulant to keep low-wage workers [blacks and Mexicans] on the job for long hours, and they all got addicted.