Again IMHO your work here was misdirected and not worthy of this attention. Your defense of your efforts is expected but does not change the facts your commentary is a pedestrian hit piece a gay litmus loyalty test penned by a Black gay female.

I see. It would be a nuanced issue to hate Pam because she is a lesbian; this is not a straightforward matter. But it would be ironclad wrong to hate her for the melanin in her skin. Got it.

Let's face it though, the average American has a *far* higher chance of being incarcerated and tortured due to the drug war than due to the terror war.

A family member of mine has a close friend who just got out of prison after fifteen years for, you guessed it, a drug charge. The tales this man has to tell would shock you greatly.

The point I'm trying to make is that a nation which condones the torture and caging of its own citizens on a scale more massive than any other on the planet has little to no compunction about doing the same to (mostly) foreign nationals.

Believe me, I'm a regular here since the inception of Glenn's old blog, and he and I are well aware of this horror. He commissioned me (then writing under a pseudonym and with assist from Pete Guither) to write this guest post: http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/03/prison-war-on-drugs-just-say-no.html

It began in the 60s and picked up steam in the 70s, as a more or less progressive cause. The idea was that many of those in the hospitals could live in a less restrictive environment in their communities, with the proper supports and programs.

. The 60s initiative for a least restrictive setting turned out to be one of those nice federal initiatives that carried lots of clout and darned little funding (sort of like IDEA/NCLB in the schools). The catcher's mitts for folks released to those least restrictive settings (the community mental health centers and halfway houses) took a direct hit under Reagan.

That may be true, but it really also was BEFORE Reagan. The funding for the community-based programs has never been what the progressive advocates of deinstitutionalization envisioned it to be.

In any event, and contrary to some comments here, letting the mentally ill out of hospitals was not a right-wing mvmt motivated by a desire to save money. It was seen as an enlightened approach to allowing the mentally ill to live in their communities.

While it is inaccurate to claim that Reagan was solely responsible for the deterioration in and frequent absence of mental health services in this country, it is equally inaccurate to claim he had nothing to do with it.

When I wrote that deinstitutionlization was not a "Reagan-era" idea, I was responding those who were laying the blame for it at the feet of his presidency and conservative motives that were ostensibly intended to save money. In point of fact, it is far cheaper to warehouse the mentally ill in great big buildings than to help them live less restrictively in their communities.

Further, I do not disagree with those who say that our prisons have in many instances taken over where the mental hospital left off. However, I know a good deal of this field both due to mentally ill family members as well as clients involved with the community mental health system. Some of the mentally ill do actually belong in institutions, either psychiatric hospitals or prison. Most, of course, do not. Additionally, there are some mentally ill people who sincerely do wish to live on the streets -- frustrated loved ones can find that courts will not coerce them to do otherwise.

But in any event, nation-wide, when many mental hospitals started closing in the 60s and 70s, the community resources to absorb the patients simply did not magically appear. That was true before, during and after Reagan.

The conditions in "Supermax" prisons are deliberately and officially designed to torture the inmates. Humans, even prisoners, are social animals and to cut a human off from social contact is one of the worst things you can do to a person.

It is so true, and I find it difficult to even contemplate prison life, but especially the Supermaxes, without becoming paralyzing depressed. They ought to be reserved strictly for the most violent offenders and/or those who must be kept from communicating lethal orders to others.

Non-violent criminals should not even be sent to prison. Home-tethering, coerced work and being made to turn over all income save that necessary for subsistence, these would save money and force criminals to give back to the community. A non-violent drug mule does not belong in a population with arsonists and murderers; if we "must" criminalize drugs, put her in an institution with only other non-violent offenders (but why not first try tethering her at home for a few years?) A doctor guilty of Medicaid fraud could be made to live in a modest apt and provide care to the poor, and only allowed out of his apt to provide those services.

Prison is a Draconian punishment, especially when the non-violent are compelled to live with predators.

BTW, I don't believe it is an accident that some of the offenders at Abu Ghraib were corrections officers in civilian life.

There are two such politicians in the US and I can name both of them.

So can I -- Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. Both oppose drug prohibition.