Let's do it!
-
in the US
elimination of 1/2 million prisoners in US- freeing up 1/2 million prison beds, and saving us the money to house them- ALSO- saving us the money to catch them (police savings), and the money to try them in court (judicial savings). Would there be negative effects from these people being in society? Could be. They will need jobs- could affect the labor rate. They may not be skilled workers- so maybe it will affect welfare. Can't imagine the costs of these people in society will approach the cost of having them behind bars- anyone interested in working out a more exact metric on that?
stopthedrugwar.org
Violent crime will probably decrease:
"But I should point out that statement isn't entirely correct. It is true that the level of minor crimes (such as public indecency, vagrancy, and other minor disturbances) did see some decline during the prohibition years. So it appears that prohibition was successful at dissuading drunks from staggering down the street singing "Sweet Molly Malone" with their pants around their ankles, since they knew that public displays of intoxication could get them 6 Months in prison. (They just did it indoors instead) But I think what is more important is that the occurrence of more serious crimes (homicides, burglaries) jumped 24 percent in 1921 alone - the year after prohibition took effect. Throughout the 1920s, crime and corruption continued to rise to unprecedented levels - and most of this crime could be linked directly to the underworld that prohibition spawned."
newspeakdictionary.com
Elimination of one of the main revenue sources for organized and disorganized crime. The impact on gangs is hard to estimate, but it looks like a huge proportion of their profits- maybe as high as 90%, are related to the sale of drugs. Also eliminated, much of the crime that results from addicts needing to support a drug habit, and killing related to law enforcement (killings for territory; killings to protect distribution; killings of law enforcement agents (or suspected agents) investigating drug crimes).
"In the pre-prohibition years, organized crime had been confined to brothels and bookie's basements. But now, thanks to prohibition, they were everywhere - in every neighborhood - on every block. By 1925, there were over 100,000 speakeasies in New York alone. If you wanted a drink, you could easily get it. The public had no problem at all obtaining alcohol. In fact, there were so many criminals in the alcohol business that gangsters had a really hard time holding on to their territories. Gang warfare became rampant, and murder rates in large cites like Chicago and New York nearly doubled as a result. "
newspeakdictionary.com
Elimination of sources of income for terrorist groups who use drug money as an easy way to get a bankroll.
One of the negatives of this might be that gangs will look for other sources of income. I can't imagine they'll find anything equivalent, so it's possible gangs will shrivel up and die- much as organized crime shrank after prohibition.
worldnetdaily.com
Our policy here has made Narco states out of countries in S. America and the ME. Because of the huge illegal profits at stake, violence becomes a way of life in such states- where warring factions carve up the lucrative business. Just as we saw in the US during prohibition, where huge rival organized crime mobs fought each other for territory, we see that on the scale of entire small nations. There would be pros as well as cons for changing this system. The pros would probably result in a lessening of violence in the countries in question- the cons would be a lessening of cash to such countries, although we can't be sure this would affect the average person that much, since most of the money never gets to the growers and laborers. But it is something to take into account.
A large negative might be that thousands of people would be thrown out of work. Every prisoner in a jail helps employ the legal staff that defended him, and the prosecutors who prosecuted him, the police who arrested him, the clerks who processed him, the judge and courtroom staff who tried him, the jail personnel who guard him, and the probationary staff who watch him once he is out. This is a huge business system, and people are invested in this (literally). Illegal criminals aren't the only ones who have staked their livelihoods on the War on Drugs. People would be out of work, and some people would probably financially ruined- is that a good reason to keep 1/2 million people in jail? Not for me, but I think we have to include it as a negative.
Here's another positive- a better way to address young people. At the moment our War on Drugs is a joke. Almost every movie shows people having a joint, and yet we tell kids they must never smoke pot, and it's illegal. Kids see at first believe what they're told (when they are in elementary school) and later, when they realize they've been conned, think the adults who are telling them this are nuts- and quite frankly, they kind of are.
In our area a study was done on DARE and the study showed the program had no effect- so SAVE the class time, and save the officer man hours spent on DARE, and stop the War on Drugs in the schools. We will be able to treat it the way we treat alcohol- which is a much saner approach. Put the beer goggles on kids, and let them see how they drive on alcohol. Tell kids about the apathetic cycle they may get in to on pot. Explain the cancer risks of the heavy user- similar to cigarettes, and keep it real. I think we'll save money, and kids might actually take us more seriously about the more dangerous drugs- if we can find the courage to be honest. |
