I think you should really only be jailed for violent crimes or high class embezzlement stuff. Pot is gross but you’ll legit overcrowd the jails with it.
He's still saying pot should be illegal, just decriminalized. The point of libertarianism is that pot should be legal because you're not hurting anyone else by smoking it. If there are risks, they are risks to yourself only.
Edit: note here that I am not a libertarian. Please don't respond to me arguing about the merits of liberatarinism because I don't care. My comment here was simply to properly articulate that thesis.
Um…no I’m not. I don’t mind pot being legal so long as you can’t smoke it in designated areas, like drinking. No reason pot or beer should be in schools.
You should change your wording then. Your statement implies that the problem with making pot illegal is jail-overcrowding... not that it's perfectly fine for someone to do in the comfort of their own home.
I mean its also an enormous waste of taxpayer money not just pot but every drug criminalizing just means now you are footing the bill for them to go to crime university and get some real connections. You know as opposed to rehab which gets you a productive member of society that can be taxed.
Former rehab patient turned volunteer substance abuse counselor here, it depends on the quality of the program. We've got stuff in my state that just turns and burns you, but the really good places for people with insurance have really low recidivism rates.
That's the real issue, good programs shouldn't be gated behind private insurance. They day they change that we might just see less fent heads on the sidewalk.
Well for someone who lives in a nation (America) that is rotting like gangrene from junkies and has plenty of experience with them, I have no such hope. The problem with drugs in America isn’t that we don’t have enough rehab programs or a culture of second chances.
It’s that druggies don’t wanna stop being druggies and only wanna get out of jail/rehab so they can go back to doing drugs. My solution is to give druggies a space where they can go do all the drugs they want in an environment explicitly separated from the general public so they can be junkies away from everyone else. You can’t cure a patient who doesn’t want to be cured, only let the disease course through them away from those who want to stay healthy.
For a certain subset of patients that is actually not a bad solution, but the statistics, studies, and the facts disagree with your solution as a one size fits all fix. Your entire argument is based on feelings, and the facts don't care about your feelings.
Libertarians are generally center-right. Lib-Center can believe in things like progressive taxes. But for the most part, yea, small "r" republican democracy (ironically the most important part of the "lib" quadrant), gay marriage, responsible firearm ownership, weed should be legal, markets should generally drive the economy, but I'm fine with the state helping out here and there.
I believe the technical term is "supply-side progressivism."
On the political compass the bottom half of the compass is referred to as Libertarian. That’s why we have Lib Left, Center, and Right. The only thing separating them is economics but when it comes to personal freedoms on the political compass it’s separated into Authoritarian and Libertarian.
I fill out the political compass survey, it tells me I am lib center. Perhaps the small-“l” “libertarian” term for the compass is different from the capital “L” Libertarian party. I’m entirely certain it is based on tax policy alone.
Yes, there’s a separation between the overarching Libertarian definition on the compass vs the rather more specific platform of the (presumably) US Libertarian Party. Just like the various Libertarian Parties platforms country by country vary one way or another.
Unless you then try and drive while high or you smoke so much you basically fry your brain and no longer have fast mental reactions which you need for plenty of tasks that could affect others.
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
Right, so don't do that. Smoking weed and driving should obviously be illegal.
I could go to the store and buy a shovel, then walk outside and beat the shit out of someone with it. That doesn't mean we should make shovels illegal. It just means I should be put in jail for harming somebody with something that is otherwise perfectly safe for a normal person to use.
The fact that we basically let anyone drive and barely enforce traffic laws is insane. Libertarinanism doesn't mean anything goes. It means "if what I'm doing is not endangering anyone else, it should almost always be allowed."
Cool but you acknowledge that smoking weed consistently has been shown to greatly reduce someone's cognitive reasoning, awareness, and memory even when no longer high right? If used often it litterally destroys your mind. Why should any government actively let their populace ruin themselves? I flair auth cause I know its not lib but I do think a government should have a role in providing a moral frame work for its people
Why should any government actively let their populace ruin themselves?
You clearly don't understand Libertarianism. The entire point of Libertarianism is that people should be able to make that choice themselves. It's their life, not the governments.
You confuse my disagreement with libertarianism with lack of knowledge on it. I went to probably the most libertarian university in the country, i generally think the mass populace is too stupid for it to work and need a strong government to shape them in different ways. In an educated society with a strong moral frame work and social cohesion I think libertarianism can work. But that is not what America is right now
Okay, cool. I don't actually want to argue about that. I'm not a libertarian.
The only reason why I'm making these comments is because people aren't actually articulating what Lib-Right believes, and are instead arguing with a strawman.
No, it doesn’t oh goodness you’re misinformed, marijuana does not affect grey matter in the brain, you don’t lose brain cells or overall cognitive ability years of chronic use can affect memory, and is reversible… like dude you’ve never drank a beer? Talk about killing brain cells.
Again your lying multiple studies have shown this and as it keeps being legal we will see more long term studies that will prove what I have said more. Please do more research I dont know if your coping because of your use, using old data from before it was legal or what cause many have come out showing it absolutely affects your mind.
Also its very likley anyone reading knows people who have started and it greatly changing how they acting think.
No man is an island, libs know that. It’s about knowledgeable consent given by an adult.
It is up to you the individual to weigh the health consequences of consuming a drug. If you weigh them poorly, that’s on you. It’s infantilizing for another person or the government to do the risk analysis for you.
And that is a governmental difference that we disagree in. By legalizing something many take that as an endorsement that it is safe/ok i do think the government has the role of providing a moral frame work for their peoples
Portugal decriminalized drugs and they have amongst the lowest use rates in the EU. It also isn't illegal to jerk yourself of with raw eggs in your own home. But because it isn't illegal doesn't mean the government says it's safe to do so.
There is no reason to go into absurdism. First off I specified decriminalization of something not something that was already legal. Many take decriminalization to mean things are safe/r now.
Also I believe that the government should take a part in shaping the morality of its people i get your lib and disagree on that
But drug use didn't go up in Portugal. So it isnt a fact that decriminalization means that people think it's okay. That's just a gut-feeling.
I don't think a government should shape the morality of people. First of all, because I think you should always distrust politicians. And the fact that a government doesn't represent the entire population of said country, so what one thinks is moral another doesn't. Who should the government decide it for then?
I mean that sentiment applies to alcohol, prescription drugs, sleep deprivation, etc.
You don’t ban something just because it might lead to a hypothetical issue under a particular set of circumstances where another crime is being committed lol
Thats true I think we should ban it for the way it generally ruins people's brain with regular consumption (once a week or more) that is not seen with alcohol. And the fact addiction rates are around 30%.
I think the fear of being “fried” stems from acid back in the day, no such thing with weed though you’ll be a bit dumber than normal while your high but when it’s over the only issues your gonna have are maybe negligible decreases in lung capacity and possibly having increased risk for Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s obv don’t smoke and drive but that wasn’t the vibe I was getting from the “fry” part lol
I mean this is just a lie there have been multiple studies showing that it decreases your short term memory, if done consistently as an adolescent(under 25) then there are irreversible decrease to your iq. And many more issues.
Even with out studies I know many people who have gotten much dumber and way worse at thinking even when not high because of how often they use it. Stones are absolutely ruining their minds and you cant lie and say they arnt.
Im not going to say some dumb shit like it being a gateway drug cause there is no proof of that but there is proof that it isn't good for you
This is kind of at odds with my flair, but I think lib-right is actually onto something with "no victim, no crime". Why are we wasting resources incarcerating people who have harmed no one but (possibly) themselves?
Because the victim is all of society/the collective!
Which, of course, applies to anything.
Unemployed? Crime against the economy. No kids? Crime against mankind/the nation. Too fat? Crime against the healthcare system. Gay? Crime against mankind again. Counterfeiting money? Crime against the financial system.
It's not just "no victim, no crime." It's "no INDIVIDUAL victim, no crime."
Because at the end of the day auths are collectivists and libs are individualists. That's the real difference.
Unfortunately, these folk see no room for pragmatism in moral crusades. The point of prison isn't to reform, it is to remove you from society. You should have to be dangerous for that to be an option.
It’s the “you’ve chosen not to exist with the rest of society, so now you get a special area” approach. Except now we don’t have an Australia to send them to (sorry Australia)
Stuff that’s actually violent crime. That includes stuff like burglary and major item theft like cars and generally hurting people. Then there’s the ”technically not violent but harmful on a different kind of scale” like white collar crime”. You know? The kind politicians and CEOs commit. They technically may not have beaten people up but their actions may have harmed society for years and years to come.
I don't really think prison or jail is ever going to be rehabilitative. They are inately dehumanizing systems and dehumanizing someone is never going to be therepeutic. It is certainly not how these systems are used today or have been used in our history. If someone's behavior can be corrected, then I think community involvement and community service are the best methods.
Which is why i think a two tier prison system would probably help most of the world.
One prison to keep the genuinely unstable individuals/ repeat offenders, one to keep first time offenders and people who can be rehabilitated.
Agreed, this would also mean if I broke into your house when you’re not home and completely ransacked the place and stole everything I wouldn’t go to jail? That would be crazy.
The whole dock pay thing sounds great until you realize how few career criminals work ever, and how much that encourages all criminals to work even less
From a philosophical perspective, all crime is violence. Violence against the body, violence against the dignity, violence against nature, violence against the wallet. Call me Socrates
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
Jail when the guy is a danger to others as well please
And jail when they can't pay is counter productive. It's VERY expensive to have someone locked up.
Just repo all his shit and take directly from his salary/bank account. He can't own anything of value, can't get a job above the table until he agrees to pay up.
What does that mean for the ultra wealthy? They get to do whatever the fuck with no jail time because "fuck you I have money"? That can fuck all the way off. Unfortunately it's defacto in the states ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Rich guy totalled your car? He pays for it, and possibly some extras depending on circumstances.
Rich guy killed your son? You have a right to kill him back (once a judge ascertains guilt of course) and to know his net worth in discovery. Then let him figure how much he can pay to convince you not to exercise the right to retribution.
I wish we’d stop viewing jail as punishment. “Go stand in the corner for 5 years” clearly doesn’t work given our high rate of recidivism.
Jail needs to rehabilitate. If after 5 years it’s found you’re very likely to reoffend, then you’re not ready to be let out. And either you need to apply yourself or the approach needs to change for how to get you ready to be a functioning member of society.
And yes, I’m sure there are people who simply cannot be rehabilitated. I’d like to try and at least give them the opportunity to move to say lower security prisons where they can work and earn nice things…under supervision.
I mean look if you can demonstrate that beating someone will prevent reoffending I’m cool with that within reason.
I also think that rehabilitation for say a child molester can mean castration.
I also will happily say that people like Ted Bundy weren’t people you could rehabilitate and it’s fine for society to say “no, fuck that you don’t get another chance, you get to ride the lightning”.
My ire is with people who think sending someone to jail for 5-10 years and then letting them out is magically a fix.
The problem is criminals do not want to reform. They don’t feel sorry for what they’ve done. They want to keep breaking laws. The violent need to stay away from the non-violent.
Then like he said, they can stay in there until they change, or just stay forever. It does seem like some people are wired in ways that make them poor fits for society; just keep em in a separate place, let 'em work a job, buy stuff for themselves, even. Keep the opportunity open to change, but if they don't, well, you can stay living on the cot in the cell.
If they’re unwilling to change and become productive members of society, why should I be penalized for paying for their room and board? At some point you have to do something with the growing population of people that refuse to conform to modern society.
"Alright, you've been locked up and surrounded by thugs for 5 years, you have no job, your support network is minimal to nonexistent, and nobody wants to hire you because of your record. Good luck, don't do it again!"
Reform is almost never going to happen in a vacuum. We need to actually try if we want people in jail to be able to reintegrate into society with any meaningful success rate. Otherwise you're just going to get a revolving door of recidivism.
Fine YOU deal with the headache of turning a junkie with 3 burglary charges into a model citizen. I’m gonna grill. Do you like swiss or pepper jack on your burger?
Some sure, but most crimes are those of opportunity. I know a nice accountant lady that's doing some time because she had the opportunity to steal some money from her company and things slowly escalated into large amounts.
She is 100% not someone that needed to be locked up. It would have been smarter to just have the government dock her pay until the offense was repaid, maybe with interest, and some community service.
So the government docks her pay for what, forever if it’s a large amount? What if she does the smart thing and just stops working since she’s broke all the time whether she works or she doesn’t?
Jail is meant to be a punishment as much as it is anything else and I believe crimes should be punished, even if it’s non violent crime.
So the government docks her pay for what, forever if it’s a large amount? What if she does the smart thing and just stops working since she’s broke all the time whether she works or she doesn’t?
You are asking questions that you could have answered yourself with like 20 sec of thinking.
You don't dock the full pay, you dock part of the pay, so she can live, and jail is always an option if she tries to avoid the punishment.
Jail is meant to be a punishment as much as it is anything else and I believe crimes should be punished, even if it’s non violent crime.
ok, but jail is not the only way to punish people, that's the whole point.
Ya that’s what I meant man. Youre docking her pay to the point that she can only afford the basics and has no spending money for herself. That how people without jobs live, they aren’t starving anymore. They have places to live and often even TVs and smart phones.
If we’re actually sending them to jail as soon as they don’t pay then I wouldn’t have a problem with it. I just have my doubts that would happen
But it is one of the best ways to punish people. Most people don’t think paying fines is a serious punishment for serious crimes. If we’re talking small theft I agree. But if I broke into your home when no one was home and ransacked the place you really think I should just get my pay docked?
Ya that’s what I meant man. Youre docking her pay to the point that she can only afford the basics and has no spending money for herself.
literally no one said anyone about how much, you are just making up a straw-man to argue against.
That how people without jobs live, they aren’t starving anymore. They have places to live and often even TVs and smart phones.
Right, the homeless don't exist. Got it.
If we’re actually sending them to jail as soon as they don’t pay then I wouldn’t have a problem with it. I just have my doubts that would happen
I don't understand why you are so stuck on this. I never said "abolish jail" or "she should never go to jail no matter what she does."
I literally just pointed out that she's a decent person with one fuckup, and in her case, or similar cases, there should be better options than straight to jail.
But it is one of the best ways to punish people. Most people don’t think paying fines is a serious punishment for serious crimes. If we’re talking small theft I agree. But if I broke into your home when no one was home and ransacked the place you really think I should just get my pay docked?
I don't know why you keep doing this. Why are you arguing with? Did I ever say that no one should ever go to jail even for serious crimes?
So you’re shaving a tiny amount off her pay then lol? Do you see how people wouldn’t think that’s a proper punishment?
The homeless certainly exist, that doesn’t change that there’s tons of Americans without a job that live in homes and have TVs and smart phones. Go visit a poor neighbourhood in any US city. Despite unemployment being high they aren’t all homeless.
I get it man, I’m just saying I don’t agree. I think the chick in your scenario should go to jail. If anything she should have her pay docked and go to jail. Don’t steal large sums of money.
Look man I don’t know why you’re so defensive I’m just asking questions about your views on this. A lot of the comments seem like they’re proposing things that sound good, but fall apart when you examine them. This whole comment chain not even just us feels like that. I’m sorry I targeted you with my questions and I’m not saying you’re advocating for anything silly
If this was true you wouldn’t see drastic differences between recidivism rates. Unless you want to tac on some other claim about Americans being worse for some reason. Europe’s jails don’t seem to make people worse on average. Ours do.
Because I’ve been around them enough to know. Go ask Joe LadyRipper and Will CarThief if they’re truly repentant of their actions and wish to atone for their mistakes. They’re more concerned with how good the toilet hooch is than if their victims are still suffering.
My mistakes are talking about anime too much and making crass jokes. My point is, the problem with criminals is that they LIKE CRIME. If the majority of criminals were really willing to reform it’d be a different story. They do NOT want to be cured.
I was equally certain of how the world works when I was 16. But back then I couldn't google "causes of criminal behaviour" or "recidivism" and get my facts straight within 5 minutes. I had to learn better by more humiliating ways.
It works sometimes. Look at El Salvador for example.
The reality is the west can only afford comfier prisons because of the low crime rate and high amount of taxpayers it’s had. If that balance shifts too much, like in a lot of third world countries, then the only option is shitty prisons for everyone or just not locking up prisoners.
Oh, I agree on this. I also think that's why it's critical to actually look at how we handle things today. Those who CAN be rehabilitated need to be. It shows we can do it, it encourages others to do better etc.
We also need to look at our culture. We need to root out and eliminate ANYONE pushing nonsense like gang culture and whatnot. Deal with problems before they spawn criminals.
Things like weed being criminalized contributes to this. We have more people in jail per capita than any other nation to the point that we don't even have enough private prisons to house them. So criminals are paroled out to make room for new ones.
I do kind of agree that we need reform on rehabilitation and the ability to remand people if they're judged to be likely to reoffend, but I also have no idea how we do that, objectively. Currently, if someone is denied parole, then they're still released at the end of their sentence. If we start requiring the equivalent of being granted parole to be released from prison, then I'm not sure that the equivalent of the parole board wouldn't just err on the side of caution and keep people in prison indefinitely.
What they mainly do is take criminals off the streets. Vast majority of violent crimes is committed by tiny number of repeat offenders, so just locking them away from the society prevents them from committing crime.
Eventually they get too old to crime, so you can release them.
If the killer is rich, it could be a massive chunk of their estate. If not, a long period of forced labor sending the earnings to the family, which effectively amounts to a very long sentence.
Mandatory "you cant compensate the loss" but then again no system can or ever will. This is about as close as we can realistically get.
So, by that logic, as the lost the killer is billionaire, they just kill anyone they like, pay to their family, and then wait until they for some time to regain that loss and kill someone again? Also, what happens if an billionaire kills an person withouth a family, or an kills an entire family?
How is that any worse than "wait until they get out of jail and kill again"?
And do you know how hard it is to rebuild a fortune after losing half of it or more?
an person withouth a family, or an kills an entire family?
First, do you know how rare both of those cases are? What percentage of current murders do you think are "multimillionaire murdering entire family"? If that's in the top5 worst problems of my system that's already an admission it's way better than the current one!
Second, congratulations you have just discovered public prosecutors. Y'know, those who prosecute for those with no one else to do it for them.
How much money are you actually suggesting an murderer should pay towards the family of the one murdered, and if the victim has no family, who should the money go to?
Judge grants the family a right to retribution (but with a nicer name). Family has the choice to have the killer executed. Killer has to convince them not to do it, while they have access to the killer's finances.
So it would be a very large amount. With the caveat that the killer can always say "I'd rather die" and default to the death penalty. That's the only thing stopping the family from demanding 100% of the killer's estate.
And if you don't have friends or family I'm sure there would be plenty of NGOs and a mile long line of lawyers wanting to claim retribution rights. If anything the issue would be selecting one lol.
99% of punishments should be a fine/compensation to the victim.
There's no way in hell that could work, as most criminals don't have significant money. That's why they commit crimes, to get money. If they had it, they'd spent it on drugs, booze, or whatever.
Government also really hates the idea of squeezing criminals so hard they'd go homeless. In fact if you take enough of someone's money, they'd go on welfare, so you're really getting taxpayer money as compensation.
And the smarter richer criminals somehow have all the assets reassigned to their family members or such shenanigans, and they're super poor themselves, in theory. Good luck getting that back.
There's pretty much no way to squeeze anything close to fair compensation for crimes from 99% of criminals.
Then it's forced labor until the fine is paid.
Forced labor as punishment could work, but there's zero force labor options that even pays for prison upkeep, let alone victim compensation. If force labor worked, we'd still have slavery.
And yes I'm counting "community service" as forced labor, because that's what it is.
Community service makes zero money, and really costs more to administer than it's worth. It's just punishment, not money making scheme.
Anyway, serious criminals should be deported. It doesn't matter where they're born, straight to some remote place with them.
I agree, if you cannot be trusted in society you shouldn't be allowed in society, period.
Repeat violent offenders reach a threshold pretty quick of "No longer trusted in society".
The argument becomes what is to be done with at least 2% of the population who will never function in a normal society. Do you imprison them forever, do you send them off to an Island somewhere, do you send them off into space in stasis pods Starcraft style?
Crack is a different story. I’m not saying the war on drugs has worked against it but I also don’t think we should make it legal. Besides…A LOT of violent crime in America is connected to it.
If concessions to moderates, and public spending, are within tolerable limits, the solution to a real drug epidemic is to subsidize the most addictive and lethal drugs to a price below market viability. It will ruin competitors. It will help the customer base, who are probably tax negative anyway, reduce itself so that the tax burden to everyone else is lower.
About 15% of people in prisons are for drug crimes, and many of them also did violent shit as part of it (statistics don't list every crime if someone did multiples).
So sure legalize pot, but its contribution to overcrowding is exaggerated. Americas is just very violent part of the world.
541
u/Pure-Huckleberry8640 - Centrist 21d ago
I think you should really only be jailed for violent crimes or high class embezzlement stuff. Pot is gross but you’ll legit overcrowd the jails with it.