The Pew Center has released a shocking statistic: one in every 31 adults in the United States is now in the corrections system in jail, prison, probation and supervision. That is over double the rate of 1982 when one in 77 was in the system.
One in 100 is in jail in a rate that retains the position of the United States as the country with the greatest number of people incarcerated. Among the states, Georgia holds the record with one in 13 adults in the justice system. Idaho has one in 18 adults in the system and Texas has one in 22.
When broken down on race, the numbers are equally staggering. Almost ten percent of black adults are in the system while only two percent of white adults.
The financial impact is also enormous with a prison and jail population at 2.3 million in 2008 — a 274 percent increase in 25 years. The costs of this population are grown even above the rate of growth — expanding more than 300 percent in the last 20 years.
For the full story, click here.
Chris,
If we’re talking about going through the medical system we’re talking about a prescription, in which case why would you buy it illegally? People hide legal prescription in ways other than getting it through illicit sources.
I was responding to Mike S. who said that we would use the health care system to regulate the sale of the drugs. Excluding weed, which i think should be legal, I dont think you would eliminate the black market for drugs like crack, heroin, and crystal meth, which are all relatively cheap. So you would be talking about a marginal difference in price especially if you consider taxing it.
chris,
The FDA has been seeking control over cigarettes for a long time. Do you have an issue with smokers having to see a medical professional to get cigarettes? I do simply because legal OTC purchases should be just that. You don’t have to see a doctor to get NyQuil and it can hammer you much worse than a joint can. I guess I’m just curious as to why you think health care professionals would need to be involved (other than the previously discussed “red pills”). Labels and health warnings should be sufficient notice as people taking the drug voluntarily will know they are bad for them. They are drugs after all.
Plus legalization will drive the price down. I guarantee it’s cheaper to buy scotch now than it was during prohibition (adjusted for inflation of course). Less cost, less incentive to commit a crime to get the cash. As for black market purchases out of shame, eh, do you know any alcoholics? I don’t see them buying out of an alley so I guess I don’t see that translating with other drugs when there is a legal source. You can always leave the kids at home or with a sitter.
Gyges:
you gotta start somewhere!
Gyges,
I agree if drugs are sold at the gas station. I wouldn’t agree that it would be easier to obtain drugs through the health care system then just going to a drug dealer. And with a drug dealer there is no documentation that you were there.
Chris,
Most people take the path of least resistance, and buying things legally is almost always easier than buying it illegally.
Might someone with children, or an interest in keeping their drug addiction a secret seek to buy drugs on the black market due to the secrecy? Drugs are already fairly cheap, what would be the incentive to go through the health care system to obtain drugs?
Chris,
Bron had mentioned that he thought that legalizing pot with regulations and a “Sin tax” might lead to an increase in the black market, I was challenging his assumptions.
I have no experience with harder drugs, and am leaving that discussion to those with more knowledge than myself.
Chris,
The other Mike has said it all and I can only add this in response to you and Bron. We can’t allow free enterprise to control the prices, or it will rise to the point that addicts will become desperate. It needs handling by the Public Health System, with costs kept low. The price would rise under free enterprise because that’s the nature of business, whose purpose is to always maximize profits.
The second stricture would be that the stuff couldn’t be advertised. That would be another problem of leaving it up to corporations and the free market. If they were banned from advertising it in media, they would do product placement in movies. I’m not sure if I became addicted to cigarettes because my parents smoked, or if Humphrey Bogart was so damned cool.
As for an increase of use, yes that is a possibility, but also too if it became available via government it might be seen as less of an attraction. An increase would still be better than what we’ve got and believe it or not some people could actually function on heroin, Meth possibly, but crack never. I’ve worked with crack addicts and it is the worst.
Also it seems to me that legal addicts should face the removal of their children unless they could prove they are competent parents.If your addiction is stronger than your parental feeling you probably aren’t a good parent.
Finally, this presupposes that we can use the savings and proceeds from taxes to provide treatment, health care for all and a competent,caring child welfare system.
Gyges,
I dont think anyone will disagree with legalizing pot. What do you think about legalizing more serious drugs like heroin crack and crystal meth?
Bron,
I don’t know why you assume that a Black market price for pot would be cheaper than the legal market prices. You have to factor in the added costs of the logistic side doing things illegally (bribes, the need for added secrecy, not being able to use the most cost effective growing practices, etc.) of things.
Also, the only way that a black market would be successful is if the costs of growing and moving the pot illegally would be enough cheaper than the doing it legally for most people to feel justified breaking the law. I don’t know where most people draw that line. Then you start factoring quality issues, the convenience of buying it at a store versus having to find a black market dealer, etc., and it seems to me that unless the black market is REALLY cheap, most people will go the legal method.
I think its funny how hard people are on the tobacco industry. Imagine an industry that promotes the use of heroin and crystal meth.
Chris:
I dont know, I would assume that if drugs were legalized then more people might do them. I actually think that once you legalize them it wont matter because the money you are spending for enforcement is then freed up for other things. I imagine the DEA would have something to say about that though, government agencies can have a life of their own and they would want to protect their turf.
You cannot legislate morality, it must be learned.
Bron,
Would legalizing the more serious drugs have any effect on the heath care system, specifically cost?
Mike,
Thank you for your response. I agree with you on many points such as some of the property crimes being related drugs. Do you think that by legalizing the drugs we spoke of that these crimes would go down? Wouldn’t drug addicts still need a means to purchase drugs, even if the drugs were legal.
MikeA:
I agree with legalizing drugs but if we did that we would have to limit government control of price and let the free market operate. If you artificialy raise the price as they are suggesting in CA with a $50/oz. tax wont that just send it underground again? And you are back to square one. This happens with cigarretes now with people buying in the south and selling them up north for a good profit because of the tax structure in the northern states.
You could actually have a bigger problem because right now I am assuming the drug trade is based on supply and demand. If you try and control prices through taxes you may accidentally raise the market price and have more of a black market than now exists.
If you can let market forces work I am all for legalizing drugs but if you cant then what is the sense. The problems you mention above will still exist. The other thought is that people that do drugs, at least the hard core, are probably not on the governments radar and may not want to be so those problems would still exist.
I say legalize it, decriminalize it and deregulate it.
Chris, the cited article was interesting. The phrase used by the authors was “drug crimes” rather than drug-related crimes. They also noted that 50% of the prison population was incarcerated for violent crimes and 20% for property crimes. I expect that many of the property crimes (burglary, e.g.) and violent crimes (assault, e.g.) were related to drug use based on other studies that relate a large portion of street crime to addicts looking for money to support their habits. Accordingly, I think that decriminalization would reduce the prison population by more than 20% because there would also be substantially less street crime. But other factors have also influenced incarceration rates. For example, mandatory sentencing laws and habitual offender statutes have significantly reduced the traditional discretion afforded trial judges in sentence determination. In addition, legislatures have continued to mandate longer sentences for criminal violations, a fact also noted in the study you cite. Whether a 20% reduction in the California prison population would eliminate overcrowding is a question that I don’t have an answer for.
Heres a link to a site that says that only 21 percent of inmates in CA prisons are there for drug related crimes and that number is down from 28 percent while violent crimes are on the rise. Wouldn’t this suggest, atleast in California, that the prisons would still be overcrowded even if we release drug offenders.
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/cacounts/CC_806ABCC.pdf
chris, you haven’t asked for my opinion, but I agree with Mike S. The decriminalization of drug possession and use would have numerous beneficial effects. Here’s a few: (a) fewer deaths from the ingestion of adulterated or impure drugs; (b) easier identification of addicted persons for the purpose of encouraging participation in substance abuse recovery programs; (c) the elimination of a multi-billion dollar international criminal enterprise; (d) substantial reductions in muggings, assaults, burglaries and other drug-related street crime; (e) the redirection of billions of dollars currently poured down the rat hole known as the “War on Drugs” into education and rehabilitation programs; (f)increased domestic stability in countries virtually under siege as a result of drug cartel violence against military, police and civilian personnel (e.g., Mexico). I’m sure people can think of many other things to add to this list.