Posted by: Matt
Comment: #1
Tue Mar 11, 2008 10:56 AM
Mr Sullum's position on this news (about prison populations) isn't surprising, since he has a long history of libertarian stances on drug laws. He appears to be arguing that it's a waste of resources to lock up most drug offenders, since they supposedly are not violent and therefore not a threat to the rest of society. Curiously missing from his column, however, is any suggestion of a viable alternative. A treatment program perhaps? Which offenders go into it, and who will pay for it? And then there is the matter that drug dealing is still illegal and therefore those who violate the laws must be punished in some way. "Repeal the drug laws," he says. Fine, but this would do nothing but convert a relatively small criminal problem into a gigantic social one. I think anyone who follows Mr Sullum's logic needs to take a good hard look at nations like Holland, and ask how well drug legalization has worked out for them. The answer is out there somewhere, but letting crackheads off the hook isn't it.
|
Posted by: robert j therriault
Comment: #2
Wed Mar 5, 2008 6:30 AM
Hi Jacob
Here in New York, we are the proud (?) birthplace of those infamous Rockefeller Laws. The recent actions to revisit and reduce the sentences of non-violent crack users is a welcome first swing of the wrecking ball to these laws. Personally, I am looking for many happy returns of the wrecking ball until these laws are torn down like the Berlin Wall.
|
