Subject:
|
Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 4 Jul 2002 11:38:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4176 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> >
> > > > One reason, and there are many others, is that we'd rather treat our drug
> > > > addicts through incarceration rather than giving them the medical and
> > > > psychological care they need.
> > >
> > > Show me in our Constitution where:
> > >
> > > 1. that is anywhere near the government's responsibility, and
> > >
> > > 2. why I should be *forced* to pay for this
> >
> > Umm...do you know what it costs to incarcerate people. I don't have numbers • in
> > front of me, but I can only imagine that it would be cheaper for the US
> > taxpayer to help them than to jail them.
>
> Do you know the percentage of crimes committed which are perpetrated by repeat
> offenders? If we just keep them in jail the first time, crime would plummet.
No, I don't. What is it? And what counts as a crime when compiling those
numbers? And why is it that you think crimes that take place in prison are
less important?
I think the overall effect on the economy of fixing those who can be fixed
would be a wild net gain. If we stopped the prohibition on heroine, the price
would drop to a point where virtually any addict could afford their fix without
resorting to crime. And even if it took _all_ of the money we spend
incarcerating them and had to dump it into methodone clinics and halfway houses
and such -- so that we were at an economic standstill (at first) the social
gain would be tremendous.
But I don't think that we would spend all that on them. I think we'd spend
lots and lots less and everyone would be happier. I mean everyone. We all
stand to win by legalizing heroine.
Way up there, you ask "why should I be forced to pay for this?" I agree!
Taxation is still thievery. But why should you be forced to pay for prisons?
And if it has to be paid, one way or another, then why not pay less and get
more?
It seems almost like you[1] just want those people to hurt.
Chris
1 - "You," in this case, means the folks who cling to punishment as an
effective means of handling social woes against all evidence, for no reason
that I can yet fathom -- not you, John, specifically. (I don't know if you fit
that bill.)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
395 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
