President Trump Freed Drug Offenders. Candidate Trump Wants To Kill Them.
The FIRST STEP Act signed by Trump eased drug sentencing. He's running away from that accomplishment in the 2024 election.

Donald Trump can't seem to decide whether he wants to execute drug dealers or free them from prison. The former president's debate with himself reflects a broader clash between Republicans who think harsher criminal penalties are always better and Republicans who understand that justice requires proportionality.
Trump has long admired brutal drug warriors like Rodrigo Duterte, the former president of the Philippines. Consistent with that affinity, he has repeatedly floated the idea of imposing the death penalty on drug traffickers.
Trump returned to that theme in November 2022, when he officially launched his 2024 presidential campaign. "We're going to be asking everyone who sells drugs, gets caught selling drugs, to receive the death penalty for their heinous acts," he said.
Trump reiterated that position during a June 2023 interview with Fox News anchor Bret Baier, saying, "That's the only way you're going to stop it." But as Baier pointed out, a policy of executing "everyone who sells drugs" is inconsistent with Trump's record as president, which included sentencing reforms and acts of clemency aimed at reducing drug penalties that Trump described as "very unfair."
Defending that record, Trump cited the commutation he granted to Alice Johnson, a first-time, nonviolent drug offender who was serving a life sentence for participating in a Memphis-based cocaine trafficking operation. "But she'd be killed under your plan," Baier noted, "as a drug dealer."
That observation flummoxed Trump. "No, no, no," he said. "It would depend on the severity," he added. He also noted that the death penalty he imagines would not apply retroactively to Johnson herself and suggested that, had it been the law at the time, it would have deterred her from getting involved in drug dealing.
All of that is beside the point, of course. If a life sentence was excessively severe for Johnson, a death sentence obviously would have been inappropriate as well—and not just for her specifically but for anyone guilty of similar offenses.
Trump's confusion on this point is especially striking because Johnson became a symbol of his purported opposition to unjust drug penalties: She attended his 2019 State of the Union address, appeared in a Trump campaign ad during the 2020 Super Bowl, and spoke at the Republican National Convention that summer. Trump repeatedly linked Johnson to the broader cause of sentencing reform, which he proudly championed by embracing the FIRST STEP Act.
Among other things, that 2018 law reduced several mandatory minimum sentences, authorized the resentencing of crack offenders in line with current penalties, expanded the "safety valve" that allows some drug defendants to avoid mandatory minimums, increased "good time" credit for federal prisoners, and facilitated "compassionate release" of elderly and ailing inmates. With Trump's backing, the bill attracted support from 182 Republicans in the House and 38 in the Senate.
During the 2020 presidential race, Trump used the FIRST STEP Act to attack Joe Biden from the left on criminal justice, highlighting the Democrat's long history of supporting draconian drug penalties that disproportionately hurt African Americans. Now Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Trump's leading rival for the Republican presidential nomination, is using the FIRST STEP Act to attack Trump as soft on crime.
DeSantis, who brags about lengthening Florida's drug sentences, condemns the FIRST STEP Act as "a jailbreak bill," saying it endangers public safety by "releasing people who have not been rehabilitated." As president, he says, he would urge Congress to repeal that "huge, huge mistake."
Trump could respond by noting that several provisions of the FIRST STEP Act are designed to promote rehabilitation. He also could cite data indicating that former prisoners who have benefited from the law have a relatively low recidivism rate.
Trump might even argue that the goal of preventing crime by keeping people locked up must be balanced against the goal of ensuring that punishment is commensurate with the offense. Instead, Trump seems determined to show, by re-upping his kill-them-all proposal, that he can be even more mindlessly punitive than DeSantis.
Not to be outdone, DeSantis has suggested that suspected drug traffickers should be summarily executed when they are caught "breaking through the border wall" between the U.S. and Mexico. "Of course you use deadly force," he said during a June campaign stop in Eagle Pass, Texas. "If you drop a couple of these cartel operatives trying to do that, you're not going to have to worry about that anymore," he explained, because they would be "stone-cold dead."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
There's no need for that, it seems drug users are doing a good job killing themselves. I'm against the drug war and believe they should be legal . On the other hand, I have no sympathy for those who take drugs of questionable origin and die.
If drugs were legal, the quality wouldn’t be as questionable, and fewer would die.
True dat!
If bongs are outlawed, only outlaws will have bongs!
And also don't let ultra-woke ultra-femiNAZIs "have their way" with men, or...
If dongs are outlawed, only outlaws will have dongs!
I have my doubts about that. People who use recreational drugs are not well known for their self discipline and sense of self preservation.
Now do booze.
People do die from drinking alcohol. It’s just not something that garners as much attention as a fentanyl overdose because we’ve arbitrarily made fentanyl into the scary drug.
Agree here with you and Idaho-Bob
I actually had a very dear friend die from chronic alcohol use leading to acute renal and kidney failure at the ripe old age of 25. These sorts of scenarios do happen.
Fentanyl likely has a higher incidence of overdoes relative to the number of users. It’s also much less predictable due to sourcing, and difficulty calibrating dosage.
An acute alcohol overdose is hard to achieve, in particular for Europeans. OTOH, lots of people die from the effects of chronic alcohol abuse.
But alcohol is fundamentally different from opioids and stimulants anyway.
Can you explain how alcohol is different from opioids and stimulants. Certainly they are chemically different and have different effects. But fundamentally they are similar in that they alter our brain chemistry. Alcohol differs in that we have integrated it socially, as in having a wine/beer with dinner. Any of these drugs can be used recreationally to alter consciousness for a pleasant effect. Any of these drugs can be used to self-medicate to address mental health issue.
Well you shouldn't lump them all in as fundamentally the same, either. The fact that it takes much lower concentrations of certain substances to reach lethality is definitely a fundamental difference.
I recently heard a rather compelling argument about another fundamental difference between alcohol and weed. Alcohol punishers the drinker for overconsumption. If you consume too much, the next day you feel miserable. The very nature of it teaches you a sense of moderation. And if you've ever vomited up vodka or tequila, the memory of that strongly sticks with you and you lose your taste for it. But there's no feedback mechanism for marijuana-you can consume way too much, but once it's out of your system, you bounce back pretty quickly.
Now, I can't say that there's no other illicit substances that have a negative feedback mechanism like alcohol, but I think that's part of what allowed alcohol to remain more socially acceptable compared to things like opiates.
Was going to say pretty much this in response to “arbitrarily made fentanyl the scary drug” above.
It’s like saying we arbitrarily made ether or CO inhalation scarier than nitrous oxide inhalation. Drug dealers didn’t start including it arbitrarily and just because it’s a black market doesn’t mean it’s not a market. There are factual reasons why they do it and pretending like there’s not or that no other market would recognize a similar fact pattern is arbitrary.
Edit: And I had similar happen to the best man from my wedding in his 30s. Acute Alcoholic Hepatitis (Steatohepatitis) progressing to renal/systemic failure.
I would like to go back to the time where we were mostly just concerned about prescription opiate abuse. The jump to heroin, and now fentanyl has not been an improvement.
Interesting idea about alcohol and self-regulation. I would say that the reason alcohol is more socially acceptable is that for a great portion of human history alcohol was safer to drink than water. Check out "A History of the World in 6 Glasses"by Tom Standage to get a better explanation of this.
You do realize the idea that medieval people drank beer instead of water is largely or entirely a myth, right? Always good to be skeptical of major claims like that.
Is it a myth or is it that their beer was essentially non-alcoholic for general purpose use and only certain beers were potent enough to actually get drunk from?
But there are records of ancient Egyptians paying workers in bread and beer. I am not suggesting that no one drank water, but rather that in days of poor sanitation, low alcoholic beverages were many time safer to drink than local water. This likely contributed to the social acceptance of beers and wine being included in meals.
The WHO recently declared that there is “No safe level of alcohol”, so of course we should all listen to them and become teetotalers because they are experts who follow the SCIENCE, just like they did with COVID.
The Canucks seems to be listening at least-they now recommend no more than one drink per week.
The "Canucks" you speak of are simply 2 extremely temperance minded "researchers" from the University of Victoria's anti-alcohol group. Every year they come out with yet another highly biased study which makes unsubstantiated claims about the evils of alcohol. The recommendations you cite are in no way public policy, they're just the opinion of 2 people that the media has magnified through their usual game of telephone. The hype starts at our local AM radio station and is soon magnified as it's repeated across the country by an unquestioning media culminating with the CBC, our government sponsored mouthpiece for all things fearmongering.
We all know the origin is with the rat pack!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VjFyX2sSTGs
As I understand it, The WHO would take anything you could throw at them. Except Roger who claims never to have used hard drugs, just a lot of booze. He can still belt out the songs though!
Yet alcohol remains by far the most popular drug, and has the most people addicted to it.
I believe that honor goes to caffiene
Many alcoholics deal with hangovers by having a nice stiff drink. Yes, one can get a hangover from too much weed. Try doing too much edibles.
Not hardcore alkies. They're past vomiting. If they do puke, they're too drunk to care.
Alcohol is different from common opioids in that it causes less physical harm and less dependence.
Alcohol is different from stimulants in that it is a depressant, and hence use and abuse is quite different and tends to be self-limiting.
An acute alcohol overdose is hard to achieve
Go to the store, buy a bottle of cheap vodka for $6 and chug it. Don't know how much easier it can get.
Sarc could give a master class on that.
Most people would not be able to get very far into the bottle before throwing it all back up. If it doesn't have time to absorb into the body, it won't kill them.
Unless they boofed it.
I boofed an ounce of 16% Sake once. It was like I guzzled a 26er of hard liquor. Instant spins and dry heaves. Now I only boof acid.
Why the fuck would anyone want to do that? It sounds awful, and really, a shitty way to ingest alcohol.
I think some are so dehydrated and have bile and what not fucking up their throat (or smoke like a chimney while drinking and are always drinking so always smoking) so they can't physically orally drink as much as they want/need. So they bypass the stomach and go up the ol' poop shoot.
Ugh
Pretty over generalized statement. I use recreational drugs and nobody in my life would question my self discipline or sense of self preservation. I also know lots of people that don’t and their life is a disaster.
The majority of drug users, including hard drugs, are not strung out street junkies.
As proven by Pfizer having chemicals in the mRNA vax unintended when they pushed for mass production, food companies allowing x parts of animals and insects in grain, and all the recalls on regular medicines as well.
Drug users will always exchange quality for price. That is why you see addicts getting cheaper but riskier drugs as they chase the high. Put of all people drug addicts can not be treated as a rational actor.
And even in California you see a thriving marijuana black market with people adding other drugs to marijuana to get a bigger high for customers.
There is a really big difference in complexity of production between something like an mRNA shot and well known opiates. Can you name any example of legally produced and distributed pain killers causing significant harm because of adulteration or poor quality control?
They have had Tylenol recalls...
Part of the reason the marijuana black market is thriving is because of superior potency, and overall quality. Most of it is the equivalent of top shelf liquor.
Also, regulation. There's a bigger black market for marijuana in California and Illinois due to the limits on the number of licenses and how the licenses are distributed. There's a far smaller one in states like Oklahoma and Michigan where weed stores can be found as frequently as liquor stores and cheap cigarette stores.
A lot of those regulations also limit horticultural quality. In the NW, most pot is really good. So it takes a lot to stand out.
There is zero evidence for that statement.
How about the fact that currently legal drugs have decent quality controls and don't kill a lot of people?
You're presuming that if recreational drugs were legalized, manufacturers would produce and sell them just like medical drugs, but that is unlikely, because any legal manufacturer would still face steep civil liability.
Furthermore, legalizing drugs has lots of effects, some of which lead to additional deaths. Therefore, it is unproven that the overall number of deaths would go down EVEN IF the number of deaths from poor quality drugs were to go down.
Portugal
"Back in 1999, Portugal experienced 369 overdose deaths and in 2016, the number was just 30." - https://www.statista.com/chart/20616/key-developments-since-portugal-decriminalized-drugs/
Portugal did not legalize drugs, they decriminalized drug use. They are probably still less permissive than many US cities.
Furthermore, after decriminalization, drug deaths went up for several years, then went down, probably for reasons unrelated to decriminalization, since similar trends occurred in neighboring countries.
I’m fine with legal drugs as long as all these bullshit laws and regulations coddling addict bad behavior are eliminated too. Especially protections for addict tenants. I’ve had to deal with that twice in just the last five years.
Conflating Pablo Escobar with a random street drug user is pretty intellectually weak.
Unfortunately, that is what passes for political analysis at Reason.
This. Trump’s stance on this issue is pretty clear to me. When Trump talks about executing drug dealers he’s talking about violent drug gangs bringing truck loads of drugs, not the kid down the street selling bags of weed.
I disagree with him, but I don’t need to be dishonest about his position to do so.
I was wondering that as I started reading. Seemed to me that Sullum was truncating quotes and removing context. I've also disagreed with what I heard Trump say about executing dealers, but it was always in the context of cartels bringing crime and violence along with the drug trade.
The criticism here would be better if he wasn't dishonestly just attempting to make Trump look worse than necessary.
Let’s be honest. Large scale narcotics dealers are guilty of a lot more than just trafficking.
Yes, and they should be charged with those crimes primarily, because those actually violate the NAP. And I still don’t want the state to execute them.
A lot of it is brought here illegally. The smuggling charges alone could really hurt them.
#poundmetoo
This is another case of, watch what Trump does, not what he says.
We know things that Trump tried to do as POTUS but was thwarted. I expect him to have more success at them in his next term.
This is just an example of Trump pandering to that ugliest mob, the lowest of the lowest common denominator, whose support he must have in order to win. And this is who they are, these people. The election is never about getting someone to do something positive for the country; it’s about getting the government to do something to someone else: send those immigrants home; execute those criminals; get those people off welfare; stop the gays from getting married; stuff like that. It’s about a petty ugliness, a perpetual self-righteous outrage over something or another, a hatefulness disguised as piety.
And if a politician or–or a pundit–can pander to it, they won’t have to do an honest day's work, and they’ll get relatively wealthy in the bargain.
I'm a legal immigrant and pay a lot in taxes. You bet that I am outraged that the country lets people just walk across the border and that on top of that I have to pay for their education, healthcare, and social services. I am also outraged that the cities I used to love (Seattle, San Francisco) have become overrun with tent dwelling drug addicts, and that I as a tax payer am again forced to pay for it.
No, Alric, I assure you, it is simple hatefulness, there is no piety about it. I hate that politicians are letting this happen, and I hate people like you who make excuses for it. And I hate that you falsely dress up your self-righteous piety and your radical left wing ideas as "libertarianism".
I would welcome a libertarian system of government. Under such a system of government, "illegal aliens" wouldn't be here, neither would the streets be filled with drugs users, nor would I be forced to pay for it all.
WELL SAID!
Frist of all, I am very much a progressive, and have never even pretended to be a libertarian. And I hate people like you who hate people like me. What's funny is, you came at my pretty hard, and by the end of it, I see why: You're one of the people in that angry mob these politicians are pandering to. Oh, poor you, having to pay for the education, social services, and healthcare of these illegal immigrants. Really? Are you able to feel that in any direct way? Can you feel it in any remote way? When you make your own purchases for whatever you're buying, what part of your spending can you directly feel is going to a place you resent?
While it is an important issue, it's not one that is going to drive me
to the polls. On the other hand, politicians are pandering to people like you, triggering your self-righteousness: Those damned immigrants are somehow getting some part of your pie. I don't see it, myself, and I live here, too. The part of the pie I'm not getting has nothing to do with the immigrants. Some politician telling you that it is is one of the oldest tricks in the book.
If it's not that issue of immigration, it'll be something else getting your hackles up, and it'll be just as remote to your life as this. Your taxes are collected and they'll continue to be collected and the amount going to these illegal immigrants is so minimal, it's not worth carping about. But, then, there's your moral outrage, you self-righteousness you must feed! That's the piety I was talking about, a general hatefulness toward people who've done you know harm. You're who they're appealing to, these politicians I'm talking about. The only choice you have is to not be that person.
I sum up libertarians this way: The hardest-right Republicans aren't hard right enough to suit you. You are definitely in that mob, and I hate you for it.
I am an immigrant. It took me two decades to become a citizen. I didn't get any handouts, and if I had needed any or broken any laws, I would have been kicked out.
Legal immigrants overwhelmingly despise people like you, people who invite illegal aliens, let them break the law, and give them more money that we give US citizens.
That is correct: these politicians are pandering to me and people like me: hard working middle class people, legal immigrants, people who want individual liberties and favor the Constitution.
Just like the radical leftists pander to good-for-nothing totalitarians like you.
That is how democracy works in a free country. As a progressive, you of course want a fascist state instead.
"When you make your own purchases for whatever you’re buying, what part of your spending can you directly feel is going to a place you resent?"
In Washington at least 3%. Don't get me started on federal income tax...
Yes: half my income goes to taxes, and my savings are being attacked by inflation. At the local level, tax increases have been directly justified by the need for more services for illegal aliens. I very much "feel this directly".
I am also outraged that the cities I used to love (Seattle, San Francisco) have become overrun with tent dwelling drug addicts, and that I as a tax payer am again forced to pay for it.
Forced to pay for it? Would you rather pay billions for Soviet-style steel & concrete mental institutions and prisons?…Billions to construct, billions to staff and billions over time to maintain. I don’t want to have to pay for that. I’m more than happy to let them sleep on the sidewalk so long as they don’t block one’s right of passage, which is easy enough to enforce. They still pay taxes on their cigarettes and alcohol. So they are taxpayers, too, helping pay for the sidewalks upon which they sleep. No one created the earth. They have as much right to put their tents down or sleep on a patch of land (or sidewalk) somewhere as you or I have a right to put a single-family home on an expansive quarter-acre lot. Plus, by them not competing in the housing market, it keeps the rents and housing prices from increasing as much. The homeless ate not the ones driving up rents and housing prices If they make the neighborhood appear undesireable, it reduces the amount people are willing to pay to live there, thereby keeping rents and home prices from rising as fast, thereby keeping them affordable. Stop false-righteously envying the homeless. Be glad they are there helping keep rents and home prices in check.
I'd be happy with mandatory drug treatment and/or US-style minimum security prison with decent rehabilitation.
Housing people in minimum security prisons is considerably cheaper than what SF spends per homeless person. Furthermore, having them in an institution like that allows them to be rehabilitated and deal with their addictions and medical issues.
"...The election is never about getting someone to do something positive for the country; it’s about getting the government to do something to someone else:..."
Smells strongly of projection, especially given what Trump accomplished in four years.
Sounds like you’re pleased with the state of affairs in places like San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Chicago, etc.. No thanks.
You probably sneer at decent people in middle America that just want to live their lives with freedom and safety.
That was the entire premise of the "Tea Party" - cut government benefits for everyone who isn't straight, white and male. Keep women barefoot and pregnant (forcibly if need be), send the immigrants, nigras and queers back to where they came from, but don't you dare touch what's "mine".
Your retardation is delicious.
Actually it was cut goverment benifit for everyone, and don't bail out the banks or car companies
Correct and it wasn't aimed soley at 0bama as many like to believe.
Maybe it makes sense to a very stable genius?
Or a delicate genius.
Most libertarian president ever.
Back to the words mean more than the actions so you can defend Joe. Good for you.
Get a life.
Awww. Pour sarc.
Seriously. The amount of mental energy you expend in keeping track of past comments so you can use them to derail conversations you're not part of is not trivial. You should apply that energy to your job or your family, not me.
Yes pussy, you hate being held accountable for the bike and drivel you spew here. Alcoholic pieces of shit like you always hate accountability.
There is no mental energy involved. It is a 5 second bookmark. Way less energy than it takes to you to lie or rationalize a past statement.
The only liar here is you. You’re like a cop or prosecutor who twists what someone says into something completely different, to the point where the person reacts with surprise. If your intention is to be honest, you’re doing a really shitty job.
That's why I don't think honesty is your intention. If it was you might have gotten something right one time.
Hey pussy, you should talk about things you know. Like severe alcohol abuse. This is actually the right place for that. And you’re an expert.
Wait!
Sullum doesn't like Trump!?!?!?
What the hell happened there?
Kill drug addicts? Like our very progressive northern neighbors in Canada?
Why does Sullum try to analyse this? Trump just comes out with whatever crap enters his head on the moment, that he thinks might be to his advantage, consistency and truth be damned.
How unusual for someone in office.
And yet managed to be the best POTUS in the last hundred years. But to childish shits like SRG, actions are irrelevant; personality is all that counts.
Stuff your TDS up your ass, and then fick off and die,, shitpile.
You hate him because Soros hates him.
Just so long as it's only rhetorical bullshit and no more, then I'm OK with it. But, I am wary of him acting on imposition of the death penalty when a life has not been willfully taken. That's a nasty can of worms...next thing the liberals would reverse themselves on the death penalty so they could impose it on white dudes for guns.
If Sullum couldn't rant about Trump would we ever see another column from him?
Why do you pretend that Republicans don't have frontrunners? He is happy to trash DiSantis or any other threat to the establishment.
Expect Aqua Buddha level articles if another voice opposing the establishment arises.
You're turning into sarc.
There are legit things to criticize Trump about and this article is one of them. Even without it, Sullum's rabid, seemingly end-stage TDS, even among the #NeverTrump (#LPUnlessMyVoteCountsThenBiden) crowd at Reason, is obvious.
When Sullum trashes the current POTUS half as much as he does the not current POTUS I might believe that Sullum doesn't have a severe case of TDS. Until then Sullum strikes me as having a near terminal case of TDS that could prove fatal if Trump regains the presidency.
I’m hoping for terminal, if that happened enough, the country could be sorted out easily.
It is amusing sullum pulls the trick of using a headline and comparison to First Step Act to conjoin two different sets of people in order to make his rant work. Not all users are dealers. Not all dealers are even violent.
But sullum has to confuse the groups and muddle them all together for his rant. But hey. It works on the shrikes and sarcs of the world.
The right and left are equally shitty on this. A candidate from either side who plots the correct course here can earn my vote regardless of their party.
The left isn’t legalizing, but they’re going for non-prosecution and softer penalties. So the substance remains illegal to produce or purchase, preventing any legitimate market, and forces people who want to use a substance to associate with criminals. Criminals have no legal protection in selling which results in turf wars and lots of violence surrounding the trade. Non-prosecution while keeping the trade itself illegal only exacerbates the surrounding violent crimes.
What’s worse on the left is the push to reduce incarceration rates at all costs, and the over road labeling. Too many crimes of actual violence end up mitigated down, or even non-prosecuted, because the left is over sensitive about the rates and demographics of incarceration. So they’re letting out more violent criminals, the types that absolutely deserve harsh punishments for violating the NAP, and reducing penalties for violence. This isn’t accompanied by attempts to rework the prison system and improve rehabilitation-the leftist persuasion is terrified about increasing funding for prisons even when it’s desperately needed.
The right, of course, is terrible as well. Many of them still call marijuana a gateway drug, which became a self-fulfilling prophecy by virtue of making it illegal. And they demonize every substance they hear about, credulously believing every story of a cop who nearly died because he saw white powder in a car trunk. And for them it’s all a unified issue: illegal drugs are the cause of violent crime which come fro illegal immigration and poor border control. This leads to wild conclusions like deciding we need to bomb Mexican cartels in order to reduce fentanyl deaths in Chicago.
What’s just as insensible is that the right claims to be the side that defends the free market, and yet they now think that producing and selling something that customers really want to buy is worth a death sentence. Square that logic. If there was no market for these drugs, nobody would ever produce them. So the evil isn’t actually the substance itself, it the demand for it.
There actually was a decent idea in the Drug Education push. It’s been shown that showing children pictures of cigarette smokers talking through a stoma actually reduced tobacco consumption. But cigarettes are actually legal, and the “Just Say No,” push was plagued with misinformation and misconceptions about what drug dealers even do. The right got into moral panics about “pill parties,” and drugged Halloween candy. Simply educating children about the negative effects of cocaine, heroine, or meth would have been more effective than conjuring demonic caricatures of drug dealers.
Drug usage does cause a large number of peripheral harms; homelessness and vagrancy, violence, and property crimes. The thing to do is to stop subsidizing those things and aggressive prosecution of the peripheral harms. You can use the prosecution as a means of coercing people into rehab because, if they’ve committed an actual crime, it’s not violating their rights to coerce a change in behavior. But you don’t prosecute simple possession because there should be no crime absent a harm to a third party. Don’t prosecute drug dealers, prosecute people who do violence in pursuit of their drug trade. Prosecute people who rob convenience stores to fund their habits. Prosecute people who create a public nuisance by shitting in a public park or on a sidewalk. Because the harm is not that they’re using a substance, the harm is the behavior that happens as a result.
^^This! Very well-put, ATM!
Trump advocates the death penalty for high level drug dealers, people whose "products" end up causing the deaths of many people. Is that good policy? I don't know. But it is hardly outrageous, and it is not inconsistent with his previous positions.
Personally, I would prefer legalization of drugs, together with strong enforcement of laws against people who commit crimes linked to drug addiction: vagrancy, trespassing, theft, public nuisance, assault, etc. Strong law enforcement against such crimes would get the drug addicts off the streets in no time. It would also leave those people alone who manage to live a productive life while being an addict.
Off the street, into jails, where they don't receive any treatment regarding their addiction or the often underlying mental health issues associated with it. So they are let out. To repeat the same fucking thing 3 weeks later.
Most addicts are dealing poorly with trauma. Trauma comes in many forms and many varieties. Not every person who has trauma goes into drugs. There are clear associations, however, between trauma and prevalence of drug use. There are associations of pedophilia with people who themselves were molested as children. There are patterns of domestic violence with people who grew up in households where domestic violence was present. Same for alcoholism. Some of it is genetic - some of it is environment.
Until we deal with the trauma, we won't make much progress addressing its manifestation in self destructive behavior.
Troma leeds to drugs, or do drugs lead to Troma. Meh screw it I'm off to watch toxic avenger
That is nonsense. Prisons in the US provide comprehensive drug treatment, mental health care, job training, and education.
Yes, and the way to deal with trauma is to get these people into institutions where we can actually treat them. Decent, minimum security prisons and/or mandatory drug treatment facilities are the way to do that.
Letting these people rot in the streets is not "dealing with trauma", it is making it worse.
I'll fix that for you: Prisons in the US provide ineffective drug treatment, mental health care, job training, and education. It's not their fault - you cannot stuff hundreds or thousands of criminals into one building and succeed in these things.
Mental health care: Prison is a high stress environment, and entirely the wrong environment for treating mental illness.
Drug treatment: Even if drugs weren't available in prisons - and I know of no prison that could drug test everyone without finding many prisoners and guards are using - if you can't cure the mental problems, all any institution can do for an addict is to break the physical addiction and reset the dose needed for the next high. If he wants to be an addict, or if he thinks drugs are the temporary escape from his mental condition, he'll seek drugs and become re-addicted as soon as possible after release.
Job training, and education: Prison is immersion in a culture that despises education and honest work. How effective is it to pluck someone from that environment for an hour or two of classes, then drop them back into it?
The largest employer in my home town was a State Hospital that was moderately effective at treating mental illness, and its effectiveness depended on keeping patients in for treatment _without_ being like a prison. A fiendish alliance of empty-headed liberals against locking people up and conservative cost-cutters closed this and most similar institutions, leaving very little but outpatient and 28 day programs for mental illness. Such programs rarely even cure a mild neurosis. Every city where it's possible to survive the winter on the streets has been swamped with "homeless" ever since.
I agree with you, NOYB2, except for vagrancy, which is a victimless offense.
Well, if you mean that we shouldn't criminalize the mere act of being homeless, I agree. In fact, I think it's perfectly fine for people to stay in places like Slab City.
But I think it is legitimate for the local taxpayers of a city to restrict entrance into city limits based on economic criteria, such as having a fixed home address.
This is a very bad stance for Trump and Republicans.
There is NO US Constitutional Authority for national drug control. Anytime Republicans start agreeing with the left (hut hum; Biden) they need to question their premise. Enter the Democrats Cares Act bill massive mistake all over again.
There is the same constitutional authority as for the FDA: interstate commerce and many other federal laws. When it comes to drug prohibition, the link to interstate commerce is less tenuous than for many other federal functions.
Trump is at his heart a con man and so consistency isn't at issue, what is at issue is hooking the mark. So, there is no message discipline or policy. Just say whatever will score points at the moment.
Let's just all ignore that the major subject was illegal Mexican drug cartels. As-if Trump was never against illegal immigration until just now... Oh wait; Come to think of it the whole con man job actually described exactly what Biden JUST did concerning illegal invasion doesn't it?
Your brain is chuck full of TDS garbage.
How many issues has Trump been on both sides of an issue? He rants against immigrants and uses them in his business. He was for punishing woman for having abortions and then thinks Republican need to back off calls for national regulation. He advocated for masks but said he would not wear them. You don't have to look hard to find where Trump has come down on both sides of an issue.
I just miss having a president who wasn’t war happy.
Maybe that because he thinks soldiers are "suckers".
And almost 100% of what you just said is 100% BS.
Yes, Sullum, we get it. You hate Trump and are incapable of thinking about anything else.
The Republican Party, like all parties, is a coalition party. Trump has to appeal emotionally to all the factions within the party. He will say what he needs to say to win the crowd at any given moment.
As such, he's like every other politician.
Well I certainly don't agree with Trump on this, but I suspect it's mostly hyperboly. As Roberta says above, watch what Trump does not what he says. Reason strategically endorsed one of the world's most notorious drug warriors in 2020. We simply had to have adults back in the room. The adults they longed for would have been the Obama administration who spent 8 years putting medical marijuana users in federal prisons. Trump's DOJ ended those prosecutions. Still Reason insisted that Biden had seen the light and marijuana at least would be legalised at the federal level in short order. To date there is no evidence that the current regime has any interest in ending the WOD. Despite his attempt to paint Trump as a lunatic drug warrior, his actions in office that Sullum notes reveal the opposite. This is not only a poorly done hit piece it's just plain lazy.
"Obama administration spent 8yrs putting medical marijuana users in federal prisons. Trump's DOJ ended those prosecutions." False.
It was Obama's AG Eric Holder who directed the DOJ legal memorandums that changed federal policy with respect to NON prosecution of people in compliance with state laws as regards medical cannabis. Trump admin continued the practice from the previous administration.
But this wasn't happening in a vacuum. More and more states kept passing medical marijuana laws (or recreational). More and more red states started getting into the game. At this point, there isn't much the feds can do to put the genie back in the bottle to be fair but any talk of changing federal cannabis laws runs into GOP opposition. Social conservatives are really fucking this one up.
Tell that to their platform committee. Judging from the latest Sprecher, the ONLY thing besides jailing hippies, latinos and brown people that ever animates Republicans is forcing women to reproduce at gunpoint. Their "whip" is also a girl-bullying Aryan mystic worthy of a Harriett Beecher Stowe novel.
"Eric Holder who directed the DOJ legal memorandums"
When was this? IIRC, it was in the last months of the Obama administration. So you're right, Obama didn't spend 8yrs putting medical marijuana users in federal prisons, but only 7-1/2 years .... aside from those all those local DOJ offices that ignored the community organizer-in-chief and kept right on with the marijuana prosecutions until there was a new President who actually had experience managing something.
I agree that social conservatives need to back off and give freedom a chance - and if the GOPe wants to remain relevant, it had better disassociate itself from those that don't. But don't forget who it was that gave us the drug laws in the first place. Progressives created the FDA and banned opiates and cocaine. FDR's "liberal" Democrats passed the first federal laws against marijuana, and LBJ's "liberal" Democrats ramped up the penalties. Biden helped pass laws creating a 100:1 ratio between crack and cocaine, which are simply the poor man's and the rich man's versions of the same drug. Biden continued to be an ardent drug warrior right up to year 2000, when his handlers began trying to get the senile fool to shut up about it.
>>All of that is beside the point, of course.
is it? because yes the entire fucking premise is ludicrous but you conflating the scalar idea is just stupid and I'm a little mad I bothered to read you this time.
Sullum completely misrepresents Trump's position on anything because you know, orange man bad and stuff.
Trump would execute his children if it would get him elected. Well, maybe Tiffany.
That's because the basis for any position he takes is: *licks finger, holds in air*
Ackshully, it's more like seeing where Televangelists drool and lick, then having toadies check what the Grabber-Of-Pussy platform says, and running with that. God's Own Prohibitionists have in their platform to bring back the Comstockism that banned all birth control. It also whines that not enough people are shot, robbed and jailed over plant leaves. When was the last time a Republican offered to repeal laws that make electric poser unaffordable? Instead, it's "Where's Hunter?"
Pssst, they all do that.
For example, Biden and Hillary were anti-gay before it was chic to be pro-gay.
They were drug warriors and then legalization friendly.
They were pro market until they were anti market.
Trump has been a lot more consistent and reflective in what he has done than any of these Democrat a--holes.
I'm gonna go with candidate Trump.
Likely, I'll vote Libertarian.
You go, girl! That'll show'em! /sarc
One of my biggest problems with Trump is that his actions and his rhetoric are often totally at odds. This can be a both good and bad thing. He can talk tough on crime and then pass criminal justice reforms like the First Step Act (good). He can talk about improving relations with Russia and then pass a bunch of new sanctions and bolster funding for a proxy war on Russia's doorstep all because he doesn't want to be seen as "Putin's Puppet" (bad).
It's been laughable watching some of Trump's biggest promoters accuse other 2024 Republican candidates (like DeSantis and Ramaswamy) of saying whatever their particular audience wants to hear, when its obvious that Trump does it to an enormous extent. It's also silly watching Trump's biggest supporters say he's not beholden to his donors when his first term in office showed him constantly being swayed with flattery and had his policies subverted by these same sycophants.
I'm not reflexively pro or anti-Trump. I often think he far exceeded the most negative predictions of his detractors and fell far short of the promises his biggest supporters have made about him. And the split between what he says and what he actually does means you get to either be pleasantly surprised or massively disappointed but you can never be certain which outcome you'll get.
So in Grand Goblin Ronnie's Flardy, people who have not violated any individual rights nor harmed anyone are "not rehabilitated." Didn't Germany have a similar law after 1933?
cjfgcj nbj
I am making over $30k a month working part time. I am a full time college student and just working for 3 to 4 hrs a day. Everybody must try this home online job now by just use this Following Website
More infor… http://Www.Smartwork1.Com