patrick.net

Perhaps ending the war on drugs and sending less people to jail might be a solution??

The overtime pay results from many guards being overworked in dangerously overcrowded prisons, which in turn results from the "drug war". It's very lucrative for the prison industrial complex including politicians who get donations from the guard union and the corporations to keep the gravy train rolling, but it's miserable for everyone else. Basically the drug war is a war by the 1% against the 99%, complete with paramilitary police forces breaking down people's doors at all hours. The guards and cops are like the infantry in a war: they get combat pay, and many of them believe in the mission (or merely enjoy the fight), but the real $$$ is at the top.

Unsurprisingly, both the Guard Union and the Private Prison Industry lobbies for stricter, longer term sentences.

The both are working hard to defeat Prop 36, for example.

thunderlips11 says

both are working hard to defeat Prop 36, for example.

...and even Prop 36 would continue counting drug offenses as a third strike. This is what Noam Chomsky would describe as narrowing the choices, so that disfavored options (e.g. ending the drug war) are not even in the debate.

Legalizing drugs would have other ramifications.

Government could tax drugs, which means that the Gov in a sense is in league with the pusher man.

In Russia, alcohol abuse plays a considerable role in killing half the men before they reach 60, but the government relies heavily on alcohol related revenues.

To legalize drugs, society would have to accept the licensing of addicts, abridgment of addict civil rights, and specific jobs and employments users could have and specific places where they could congregate and use.

Society is not rational enough or grown up enough to do that.

Addicts, of course, wish to mingle freely with the population at large and hide their condition as much as possible while "functioning." They also do not believe that just because they are impaired and hazardous to others and themselves that they should have any less "liberty" than the sober.

Our system of criminal sanctions is such that you can get away with anything as long as you dare, until you are caught or create some kind of public mayhem, then the punishments are extreme

I don't think anybody wants a brain surgeon or a heavy machine operator who gets up in the morning with a snort of coke, smooths out the day with a little whiff of heroin, then unwinds at night with cocktails and a few joints.

Also, treatment options and the medical costs of drug use would have to be taken into account, but s a rule addictions tend to be fatal and have a chaotic, destructive decaying orbit for those who get into it.

How much does society want to spend shoring up the costs derived from drug, tobacco and alcohol use? Does that mean that users and abusers only get limited options for medical care or palliative care only?

Again, society is not grown up enough, and just accepts the costs in social morbidity, medical morbidity and prisons.

Ceffer - I agree mostly with your larger point and most of the particulars but there is no evidence the currently illegal drugs people are in prison for are categorically worse than the currently legal drugs (alcohol, nicotine, PhRMA). Cannabis for example seems somewhere between alcohol and nicotine, and midrange for PhRMA drugs. Studies of alcoholic surgeons show their records are somewhat worse than non-alcoholic surgeons but not as bad as VA surgeons. Expensive "treatment" is generally ineffective, much worse than 12-step programs that don't cost anything, so calls for "treatment" are usually an effort to pit the medical-industrial complex against the prison-industrial complex in hopes that some good might come out of it when in fact collusion is more likely (mandatory treatment programs to increase spending even further). It isn't possible to save people from themselves, but it's possible for government to waste a lot of $$$ trying, and the recipients of that $ share it with lobbyists and politicians of both major parties.

Ceffer says

Again, society is not grown up enough, and just accepts the costs in social morbidity, medical morbidity and prisons.

So your solution is to throw people in jail, have a prison record dragging through for life and throw them in with rapists and murderers??

Not all people who use drugs are addicts. Alcohol is illelgal, but doesn't eman you cna show up to your job drunk or drive a car above the leagl limit. in those cases -fine. But it can be regulated the same way. First it will take out the criminal elemant out of drugs. Then drug users or even addicts can get treatment -much like alcohol addiction and not have their entire life be dinged by what they did ten years ago. How much are we spending per prisoner -50-70k a year per prisoner???

People such as Abraham Lincoln have admitted smoking pot. I wouldn't consider him a drag on society. Also in the last three Presidents-not one can admit they didn't do drugs.

I'd be OK with executing most people in prison, then we could close down most of them and lay of a bunch of union thugs (guards).

The Professor says

Government could tax junk food more, which means that the Gov in a sense is in league with the pusher man... How much does society want to spend shoring up the costs derived from the obese peoples continued eating of junk food?

Government is already in league with junk food, subsidizing all corn products including HFCS to fatten the populace for the medical industrial complex. A significant part of society "wants" to spend unlimited amounts on those costs, including guaranteed issue insurance at the same premium and no lifetime caps on coverage. It's funny you insist on seeing a 9/11 conspiracy (where there probably isn't, except maybe LIHOP), while the much more lethal confluence of interests occurs in plain sight.

curious2 says

It's funny you insist on seeing a 9/11 conspiracy (where there probably isn't, except maybe LIHOP), while the much more lethal confluence of interests occurs in plain sight.

Yeah, it is funny. However, given the "Professor's" posting history it is not surprising.

It is also funny that the Prof would start a thread soliciting comments on his/her 9/11 conspiracy theories, then delete many of the comments that disagree with said theories.

zzyzzx says

I'd be OK with executing most people in prison, then we could close down most of them and lay of a bunch of union thugs (guards).

Christ, what is it that you think most people are in prison for?

Or is it that you are just pro mass-execution?

The Professor says

The official story is not believable.

The official story is much more believable than the idea that you are open-minded to criticisms of the conspiracy story, and that the 9/11 conspiracy is something new to you.

Here is a conspiracy for you:

I believe that you have conspired to come on to Pnet; pretend to be someone who you are not (a "normal" non-conspiracy type of guy) in order to make 9/11 conspiracy theories seem more palatable to the non-conspiracy theorist types.

Sorry, but it will not work. Hell, I even believe that forces conspire behind the scenes and the game is rigged, but when the 9/11 theories are given even a passing examination and thought they are easily dismissed by all but the most ardent conspiracy theorist.

That is why you felt the need to delete comments in your thread.

Please, bring us more believable conspiracies.

The Professor says

Sign the petitions anyway.

No.

The Professor says

I have deleted posts from Homeboy, Bigsby, and Bob, mostly for trollishness. I also delete off topic stuff.

You deleted several comments that were reasonable reply's to you thread/comments, but they did contradict your 9/11 conspiracy theory.

The Professor says

I don't remember deleting any of your comments?

You deleted my first and only post in one of your threads. It was basically just calling you out for deleting reasonable comments that happened to disagree with your theory.

After your behavior in that thread, I will not be posting in your threads again.

The Professor says

This is so off topic.

Yes.

The Professor says

Prison gaurds have a longer sentence than most of the inmates. Their job is very tough and dangerous. My father was a state prison guard and got stabbed in the chest. There are people that, by their own actions, have forfeited there right to live with the rest of us.

Yes.

The Professor says

But let the non violent drug offenders go.

For the most part yes.

See, we do agree on some things :)