Incarceration Rates, Prostitution and Drugs

by ishambat | March 17, 2012 at 12:22 am

499 views | 3 Recommendations | 16 comments

A claim made about America's vast prison population is that such is the price for having "a free society." Of course that is nonsense. Netherlands has a free society, and it has one tenth America's incarceration rate. The real reason for America having the world's highest imprisonment rate is that in America many things are illegal that should not be illegal. And that makes criminals of all sorts of people who have done nothing unconstitutional.

In America, someone goes away for extended periods of time for smoking crack or for practicing prostitution. In both cases the laws against such things are unconstitutional. Government has no business telling people what they can put into their bodies, nor does it have any business telling consenting adults what they can do with their bodies. And the reason for most of the violent crime that is associated with drugs and prostitution is not the result of drugs and prostitution themselves, but because of these things being against the law.

The mafia had its heyday in 1920s, when alcohol was illegal. Because alcohol was illegal, the only entities that could supply it were illegal entities that did things the way that all illegal entities do things - brutally and murderously. The nasty entities such as drug cartels, gangs and pimps only exist because drugs and prostitution are against the law. If these laws change, these entities will have nothing to do, and their participants will have to find something productive to do with their lives.

When something that's in demand is illegal, the only people who can fulfil that demands are people who operate in violation of the law. This is what creates - cartels, gangs, pimps, and further on along the same line. These entities work in brutal and parasitical ways, and the violent crimes that they commit are not the direct result of the business in which they operate. They are a result of wrongful illegalization of substances and activities.

This wrongful criminalization then creates two parasitical infrastructures. One is the cartels, gangs and pimps to deliver the wrongfully criminalized substances and activities to the market. The other is the vast police and prison bureacracy that imprisons people for activities that should not be illegal at cost of $36,000 a year per inmate. The first makes life hell for the people in the communities in which they operate. The second costs vastly to the taxpayer, engages in sadistic practices, and takes many people who otherwise would be contributing citizens and places them behind bars.

There is a solution to this problem, and it is nothing that costs money to the taxpayer; it is something that saves money to the taxpayer. The solution is to legalize drugs and prostitution. With these things legal, the criminal entities that are in control of their distribution will have nothing to do and will vanish from the landscape. The prison population will shrink to a level similar to that of Netherlands, saving the taxpayer loads of money. The American government will not be in business of telling people what they can put into their bodies and what consenting adults can do with their bodies. And this actually will create a free society in America.

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Sign In or Join to post comments

paul duncan (not verified)

at 02:15 on March 18th, 2012

You are obviously 100% right about this, but sadly there are so many vested interests who would lose out if good sense prevailed, that I don't see anything actually changing.

irony (not verified)

at 05:22 on March 18th, 2012

There is little point in comparing levels of incarceration with the general population, it makes more sense to compare the amount of prisoners with the amount of crimes committed. America is very much more crime ridden than the netherlands so is obviously going to have a much lower number of prisoners.Legalizing drugs is no way as clear cut as you make it out to be. There is no possible way that one persons actions can have no effect on his family, neighbours and employers. Especially since that 'constitutional freedom' is smoking a powerful narcotic that can incite a person to psychotic violence. If you had ever had a close family member who was a crack addict and witnessed the horrific rage it can induce and the consequences of that you would be far less likely to hold that smoking crack should be a personal choice which is of no concern to those who are within range of the addict. A popular phrase is that the 'war on drugs is being lost'. If that is true so is the 'war' against murder rape, car theft and vandalism, I doubt you are in favour of legalizing these.Finally, I find your belief that if crack became legalized the violent criminals who peddle it would be forced to become productive citizens to be quite frankly laughable. I have met a great many of these people and far from holding the opinion of 'hmmmmm I wish I could be a building site foreman instead of selling crack' they hold contempt for those in gainful employment. They view those who work for a fair days pay as cowards and fools. It is far more likely that they would simply find another criminal racket to move onto.

PeaceFrog

at 06:20 on March 18th, 2012

Irony,

If what you're saying is true, then please explain why the Netherlands not only has a lower per capita incarceration rate, but also a much lower recidivism rate?

ishambat

at 14:11 on March 18th, 2012

America is very much more crime ridden than the netherlands so is obviously going to have a much lower number of prisoners.
"

Explain to me please why that is so.

A popular phrase is that the 'war on drugs is being lost'. If that is true so is the 'war' against murder rape, car theft and vandalism, I doubt you are in favour of legalizing these.

"
I absolutely am not, drugs are about what someone puts into his body, these others are about what someone does to someone else.

I have met a great many of these people and far from holding the opinion of 'hmmmmm I wish I could be a building site foreman instead of selling crack' they hold contempt for those in gainful employment. They view those who work for a fair days pay as cowards and fools. It is far more likely that they would simply find another criminal racket to move onto.
"

There wouldn't be too many of those available if the things whose distribution criminal entities control are legal and regulated.

I've also known people who had been criminals in the past and went legit, and a number of them became highly effective and productive people.

irony (not verified)

at 18:55 on March 18th, 2012

But surely you recognise that the majority of criminals are criminal because they wish to be so? And I lready pointed out that no man is an island what he puts into his body cannot possibly affect only himself and no others.As to why the Netherlands is less crime ridden I doubt I am qualified to answer fully. You should bear in mind however that Amsterdam is possibly the most crime-infested city n Europe, likely as a direct consequence of its light stance against drugs and prostitution. I will admit to knowing little about the legal system in the Netherlands, what is your theory on why their is less crime?Though actually Peacefrog , everything I said could be true without me explaining why there are less criminals in the netherlands. It doesnt alter the logic of what I said. Nice try though sweetie.

PeaceFrog

at 19:02 on March 18th, 2012

...no man is an island what he puts into his body cannot possibly affect only himself and no others.

I agree, look at the CDC recognizing the health effects and addictive potential of tobacco is worse than crack. Alcohol kills more people than hard drugs. Making narcotics and prostitution illegal just serves to create a monopoly for organized crime cartels. Then again, maybe the real reason for narcotics being illegal is because its decriminalization would lead to the overnight loss of over 100,000 police jobs.

The 1

at 20:06 on March 18th, 2012

Good points by all..I would only add that you simply follow the money trail for the real answers._

irony (not verified)

at 23:21 on March 18th, 2012

Can you truly not see the difference between alcohol, which has been in customary use by nine tenths of the adult population for centuries, and crack cocaine?

PeaceFrog

at 05:02 on March 19th, 2012

http://www.dailytech.com/Study+Alcohol+is+Deadliest+Drug+More+Dangerous+Than+Heroin/article20038.htm

irony (not verified)

at 06:02 on March 19th, 2012

Thank you for the link peacefrog, there is nothing I like better than reading things I already knew. Now please turn your attention to the point I actually raised. That alcohol, no matter how harmful it is, has been consumed by the majority of the population for centuries. Also the vast majority of people who do consume alcohol retain normal lives. I highly doubt the same can be said of crack or heroin.

PeaceFrog

at 09:27 on March 19th, 2012

http://worldradio.ch/wrs/news/video/switzerland-embraces-heroin-assisted-treatment.shtml?12825
The American 'war on drugs' is much more civilized and sophisticated, right?

irony (not verified)

at 03:02 on March 20th, 2012

Actually you are confusing two seperate aspects, the war on drugs is not about treating those already on drugs, it is about preventing the sale/movement of drugs. I see nothing in the link that details how Switzerland is doing that. There are some positives about providing heroin to those who have addicted themselves to it already, however as your own link clearly attests, some will simply continue to take the free heroin indefinitely.

PeaceFrog

at 09:18 on March 20th, 2012

The only alternative to decriminalization is treating addiction as a crime. This approach has led the U.S. to the largest per capita incarceration rate in the world with a majority of its prisoners being incarcerated for drug use and drug related crime.

irony (not verified)

at 18:39 on March 20th, 2012

Actually it is possession/sale which is a crime not addiction itself. If there is evidence that accused have commited the crime why would they not go to jail? As previously stated it makes little sense to compare prison population to the entire popultion, it is more useful to compare to levels of crime. Spains justice system is more retributive than most other countries but their total number of prisoners is reletatively low due to Spain not being particularly crime-wridden.

JChris (not verified)

at 00:45 on March 20th, 2012

Irony, when we give alcohol a pass because a majority of the population has been consuming it for centuries with the vast majority of that population retaining normal lives do we then simply look for a majority of the population to be using a substance while retaining normal lives as our criteria for what else is ok? Is this the principle or criteria we're going to use as justification for whether or not a substance should be legal? Hey, if you can retain a normal life and use this substance then OK. That doesn't hold water whatsoever! The federal government hasn't the powers provided to it in the Constitution to make any drugs illegal. If at the state level the state wishes to regulate or prohibit these drugs then that becomes their prerogative. The law already provides for the incarceration of those who are guilty of assault. If anyone exercises their freedoms of choice to smoke a powerful narcotic that then incites them to psychotic violence against another then the law regarding that violent act should be enforced. Where is the need for another law regarding the use of the powerful narcotic? Not necessary. The narcotic, like alcohol, would be an additional legal issue due to influence laws. Morphine and heroin in the late 1800s wasn't just legal, it could be found in medicine cabinets in the common household. Like alcohol, the abuse of any substance is more about good instruction, at home ideally, and then, ultimately, our personal choices. Those that choose to abuse and then cause harm to others persons or property will face the law. The hurt experienced by families, neighbors, or employers due to addiction does not warrant unconstitutional federal legislation and billions of dollars in tax revenue spent to protect them from the drug addict. If so, how then shall we protect these against the addiction of the alcoholic?

irony (not verified)

at 03:13 on March 20th, 2012

The thing you seem not to realize is that while alcohol does indeed cause a great deal of misery, it is far easier to keep a ban in place on something not in popular usage than it is to make it illegal again. If heroin use was legalized and a large number of people began to take it do you truly believe that society would benefit from this? Never before has civillization been confronted with such a wide array of powerful intoxicants, simply letting people snort or shoot up whatever they like would certainly have grave repurcussions in the future. In order to ensure that people were not done up on smack while operating heavy machinery, dealing with the public etc. would require spot checks on levels on consumption to the point where North Korea would begin to seem like a libertarian paradise.You can harp on about the constitution all you like, it doesnt change the fact that legalization, and therefore more widespread drug would not have a purely negative effect.We lose surprisingly little by not being allowed to take drugs.