Instead of imprisoning for drug usage - provide treatment and rehab. It's cheaper and has better results. One could argue culture differences in drug usage, but that looks like an attempt to "knock it before you try it".
That's without going into how broken the US prison system is! See: privately owned prisons that require a quota to be filled [0].
There is a huge legal difference between getting caught doing drugs vs facilitating the trafficking of mass quantities of controlled substances. I don't think casual marijuana smokers should get all up in arms like "hey man they are just going after everybody now!", do they offer the same support to heroin cartels?
Even if you're against the war on drugs I don't think you should really take it as a personal slight when someone operating on this scale gets arrested. Unless you really 100% believe that distribution of heavy narcotics doesn't damage society.
If people are going to take drugs, somebody has to produce and distribute them. It doesn't make much sense to me that possession and consumption of drugs should be legal but manufacture and distribution shouldn't. Regulation would be nice, but the state is falling down on its duty there.
Please read the parent I responded to. Especially the closing statement.
>If drugs were legal and treatment of abuse the focus instead of punishment Silk Road wouldn't have existed in the first place.
I cited Portgual, a country where drugs are legal and the focus is on treatment of users. Giving an example of where such a system exists and works. The "war on drugs" is the wrong approach. I implied, rather indirectly, that prison quotas have a lot to do with keeping drug use illegal. It makes it easier to fill quotas.
Now then - the parent and my focus were both more on the users and the wrong approach for the "war on drugs". A response to me focused more on distribution and extrapolating the legal stance of Portugal. So I cited a Wikipedia page that was more specific and re-iterated that my focus (and the parent I responded to, by extention) were more focused on drug users and treatment doing more good than going on witch hunts for distributors.
Congratulations, you caught Ulbricht. Now what about all the other dealers that people will turn to? Especially local dealers who might lace their drugs or have improperly manufactured drugs (ie. containing arsenic) that may lead to more deaths of users?
I have no idea how the Silk Road worked, but I imagine dealers had accounts and received feedback. This meant there was some level of Social Quality Control over the drugs. Anyone selling faulty/laced drugs would be quickly rooted from the market. Providing a 'safer' place to buy, even if still illegal, does more good for the users than having to trust shady dealers.
This is very, very related to the war on drugs. It's a criticism of the policy of it all.
I'll quote myself from another post I made:
"Mistaking some delusional world of zero crime doesn't do any good for people living in reality."
Maybe the best long-term policy is drug decriminalization and treatment (etc), and maybe were that already the case, Ulbricht would not have been tempted into doing anything bad.
Nonetheless, that has no bearing on this case. Once somebody is dabbling in murder, they need to go down, because they are clearly not somebody we want in society. That they were "tempted" into it by potential profits enabled by misguided prohibitions is irrelevant.
So yeah, decriminalize drugs, focus on treatment, etc. Maybe that will make the future of our society brighter. But Ulbricht belongs behind bars.
I don't disagree with your points. I don't like the War on Drugs either. I think it is destructive.
Ulbricht was a legitimate kingpin who at least tried to have people killed. I don't have much sympathy for him and I'd rather distance his actions from real issues with the War on Drugs.
I still disagree that Portugal's policies regarding users is that relevant here. You are right in what you are saying, though.
> See: privately owned prisons that require a quota to be filled
That's not quite correct. The contracts do not require that a certain number of prisoners be kept in the prison. They require that a certain number be paid for. The contracts are essentially of the form that the state will pay $X to house up to Y prisoners, and $Z/prisoner for any prisoners beyond Y prisoners.
Since private prisons are only a small fraction of the prisons, the people that should be most annoyed by this are the employees of state run prisons. If crime goes down in a state and they want to close a prison to save money they most likely will make sure to fill the private prison first (since they are already paying for it) and cut staff at the state prisons.
(NOTE: this does NOT mean I'm saying private prisons are fine--just that contracts that guarantee a minimal payment regardless of occupancy are not necessarily bad. Private organizations tend to have less oversight than state run organizations, so it would not at all surprise me if the private prisons have staff that are not as well trained or as accountable as state prison staff. If I were setting up a prison system and it was going to allow private prisons, I'd probably require that the warden be appointed by and employed by and answer to the state, not the prison owner, and has the ability to fire private prison employees who are in jobs that involve direct interaction with the prisoners. I'd also require penalty clauses in the contracts that reduce payments if conditions are not at least as good as those required of state prisons.
It would be interesting to look at the strength of whatever public employee union represents state prison employees in each state, and see if there is a significant correlation between that and state use of private prisons. I'd expect weaker unions would increase the chances of private prisons.
So if someone opened a website in Portugal and sold illegal drugs, weapons and stolen financial data, that person would be looking at a few months of talk therapy?
Context of who I was responding and what they were saying is extremely important when reading. You should give it a try! Or do you enjoy making silly strawman attacks against things that were never said?
Try reading the parent I responded to once more - then my response. If it isn't clear how they correlate, focus especially on the closing sentences of the parent before reading my response to them. If still confused - press the "Panic!" button and I'll do my best to assist you.
E:
I see the "Panic!" button was pressed. Do you require assistance?
Drug policy and private prisons are completely irrelevant. This dude operated a massive organized criminal enterprise, and was willing to kill to protect it.
Frankly, whether he was selling stolen stereos, cocaine or moon rocks isn't really relevant in the eyes of the law.
Apparently you aren't - seeing as your original response to me had absolutely nothing to do with what I and the parent were talking about and instead was a strawman attack against things that were never said.
Instead of imprisoning for drug usage - provide treatment and rehab. It's cheaper and has better results. One could argue culture differences in drug usage, but that looks like an attempt to "knock it before you try it".
That's without going into how broken the US prison system is! See: privately owned prisons that require a quota to be filled [0].
[0] http://www.inthepublicinterest.org/article/criminal-how-lock...