Drug War

An Amnesty for Prisoners of the War on Drugs

|

Atty. General Eric Holder's long overdue realization that "too many Americans go to too many prisons for far too long, and for no truly good law enforcement reason" was an important step toward a national recognition that our decades long war on drugs has been ineffective, expensive, and cruel. As bipartisan support grows in Congress for overhauling U.S. drug laws, Holder has just ordered Federal prosecutors to remove any reference to quantities of illicit drugs that trigger mandatory minimums and to apply this provision to pending drug cases, where the defendant has not yet been sentenced.

But reducing the length and frequency of drug-related incarceration going forward for new cases, however welcome, doesn't do anything about the large population of drug users already stuck in our prisons. Many non violent drug offenders are still serving out long terms under the now discredited mandatory sentencing policies. Most of these are young minority men with children, drawn from our poorest urban communities.

To date little has been said about how we can both dispense justice and save money by reducing the size of this key population.

Read this article at The Huffington Post.

Advertisement

NEXT: Rep. Peter King Assumes FBI and Law Enforcement Are Looking Into Somali-American Communities in Wake of Nairobi Attack

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What’s with all the HuffPo stuff recently? I get posting Radley’s stuff but why this?

    1. They suck pretty bad in general, but you have to admit this is pretty reasonably libertarian. The blurb at least, I ain’t clicking on that cess pit.

      1. Sure, this one is ok. But what about the next one? And the one after that?

        1. They are trying to soften us up.

  2. Speaking of HuffPo, I mean, Salon.

    Michael C Moynihan ?@mcmoynihan 8m
    I don’t watch the show, but was still fairly certain that Salon would publish a piece like this http://www.salon.com/2012/09/1…..ist_fable/

    1. Or I Don’t Understand Fiction

    2. If you took Walter White and had him played by a black or Hispanic actor literally nothing about the show would change.

      It would have the same themes, the stories would still make sense, and you’d have no racial overtones other than maybe Walter would blend in better with New Mexico’s Hispanic and Native American populations.

      1. If Walter White was black or Latino, the show would be racist for portraying a stereotype of blacks and Latinos as drug-dealing outlaws

        1. Walter White dealt drugs out of his NAACP office?

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Francis_White

    3. Using anti-racism as a cover for profound paranoid schizophrenia is getting old.

      I’ve heard acid-burnouts give more coherent and textually grounded media analysis while they where smoking cocaine-laced joints than this nonsense.

      1. That afternoon you came over to listen to my diatribe will always be appreciated, Sugarfree. Oh, you left your copy of “I Did it My Way” on my coffee table.

        1. Regrets? I’ve had a few.

    4. I can’t believe how meandering and retarded that article is. I read a good half of it before I had to stop because it was so unfocused and idiotic. Basically the author wants to whine about race and decided to do so about an incredibly popular show that happens to star some white guys. Next up: why Game of Thrones is racist: because the Wall is made of WHITE snow and ice.

      1. If it was made of black snow and ice, they’d complain about that as well.

        1. The wall is weeping, NutraSweet. Because of racism.

          1. Actually, that’s meltoff, the enchantments are failing.

      2. because the Wall is made of WHITE snow and ice.

        And who maintains the wall? The black cloaks. Who are bound under penalty of death to give up all their dreams to serve the wall.

        Get it?

        The black guys are enslaved to care for the big white thing!

        ZOMG!

    5. So I got to the part where the guy doesn’t understand that %yield=profit for chemical production and quit. Oooh, stainless steel vats! With the exception of the breathing aparatus, there’s no appreciable difference between the lab under the dry-cleaners and a brewery from the measuring, sealing, cleaning aspect. This stupid fuck thinks meth is dirty, so the production must be. And it kind of is, because you can’t exactly buy the sort of industrial air cleaners necessary to deal with phosphene gas for your house without getting a visit from the Feds. Thus, the first episode when they’re cooking in an RV in the middle of nowhere in their underwear and gasmasks.

  3. “To date little has been said about how we can both dispense justice and save money by reducing the size of this key population.”

    And what has been said hasn’t been said by the people who could do something about it.
    That would be you, Obama.

    1. Yes, he has not done nearly enough.

      OT: CBO is predicting substantially lower healthcare spending this year and 25 years into the future. While last year CBO estimated that, “Federal spending for those [health care] programs would grow to 9.6 percent of GDP in 2037; in that year, 6.0 percent of GDP would be devoted to Medicare, and 3.6 percent would be spent on Medicaid, CHIP, and the exchange subsidies.”

      This year, CBO projects, “Federal spending on the government’s major health care programs would grow to 8.0 percent in 2038; in that year, 4.9 percent of GDP would be devoted to spending on Medicare and 3.2 percent would be spent on Medicaid, CHIP, and the exchange subsidies.”

      http://wallstcheatsheet.com/st…..?a=viewall

      Good news. Take it like a man.

      1. Well if the CBO predicts something 25 years in advance, it must be true

        1. Don’t bother, Cali. It’s not interested in anything but being a liar so you will argue with it.

          1. Yes, this.

          2. I cannot understand why people are stupid enough to engage it.

            1. This comment seems to have broken my Reasonable.

              1. I’m guessing SkyNet became self-aware and naturally went after Epi.

                1. Mine too. See what happens when yall talk to it?

              2. Mine’s broken too. Not sure what did it. I’d love to take responsibility, but I don’t think I can.

                1. Now it’s broken on all the articles, so I guess you can’t take credit.

            2. I cannot understand why people are stupid enough to engage it.

              They have balls.

                1. Chocolate salty balls?

          3. I wasn’t planning on saying anything besides that.Not worth wasting time in a drawn out argument with such a dishonest adversary. Better to just quickly point out his idiocy

            1. I was just being a big old meanie.

        2. I haven’t read the article, but a lot of CBO projections have disclaimers on the bottom of the page which essentially say, “If Congress and the president can be grounded in reality and sanity”.

          Since we know the latter is never true, the former won’t be.

      2. Palin’s Buttplug| 9.23.13 @ 1:37PM |#
        “Yes, he has not done nearly enough.”

        No, shreek, he’s done NOTHING.

        1. Not true. Justice has been directed to ignore federal MJ prosecutions and let the states handle them. (source – 60 Minutes CBS)

          Not nearly enough though.

          1. Subject under discussion:
            “An Amnesty for Prisoners of the War on Drugs”
            Whooosh!

      3. CBO is predicting substantially lower healthcare spending this year and 25 years into the future. While last year CBO estimated that, “Federal spending for those [health care] programs would grow to 9.6 percent of GDP in 2037..

        This year, CBO projects, “Federal spending on the government’s major health care programs would grow to 8.0 percent in 2038…”

        That would be great, if it weren’t spending 4.6% GDP in 2013. So, the federal government, in 25 years, is probably going to be spending almost twice as much a percentage of GDP on health care as it is this year, instead of probably slightly more than double.

        This sounds like an accounting adjustment, not reform.

        But, come on: Foward! Yes We Can!

        1. Demographics are a bitch.

          Bring on the IPAB!

          1. The government’s been trying to reduce medicare spending without effecting its quality since they started medicare. It’s track record speaks for itself.

            So, congress can’t reform medicare itself. But it can appoint a special panel that can reform it, unless congress vetoes it. And this is expected to work, why?

            I’ll make the following predictions for your IPAB. Either:

            1. They won’t be able to propose any new rules that accomplish reduce spending to target levels without impacting quality. Whatever doesn’t impact quality will accomplish a trivial amount of savings, but, since it’s a federal program, that won’t keep them from being able to brag about big numbers (“$100 million saved!”, etc.)

            2. If they do manage to propose something big, it actually will piss off old people or doctors (or both), and congress will override it, just like they do a doc fix.

            OK, so let’s play this out in real life for the Obama supports, who apparently haven’t been paying attention for decades, and think that this is all the hope and change they’re going to get after 8 years of Bush + Obamacare.

            1. You seem to be very sensible. Post more.

            2. Brian|9.23.13 @ 2:52PM|#
              “The government’s been trying to reduce medicare spending without effecting its quality since they started medicare. It’s track record speaks for itself.”

              I’ve been trying to get something for nothing for the same time and, dammit, I just can’t find it!

              1. I’ve been trying to get something for nothing for the same time and, dammit, I just can’t find it!

                You haven’t appointed a 15 member panel. Once you do, magic happens.

          2. Demographics are a bitch.

            No one saw that coming!

      4. First of all, 4.9 + 3.2 = 8.1 so they can’t even get their fucking math right.

        Secondly, a reduction of 1.5% is a fucking rounding error and one that could be pinned to any number of things, the least of which is Obama policy.

        Thirdly, what the fuck does this have to do with people in prison?

        1. It got you to respond to it, didn’t it?

  4. What is the official Libertarian stance on various proposals to require drug screening in order to be eligible to receive government financial assistance? I consider myself Libertarian, also consider the government taking anyone’s urine sample as being overly intrusive to one’s privacy. But hey, what is cleaning up their act for a few weeks worth to all these people about to be released from our prisons?

    1. Well, the data from Florida indicate that our welfare recipients use drugs at a statistically lower level than the average. Which makes sense to me, because poor people can’t afford drugs.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.