We would not have the "Drug Mule" in the first place if it were not for the War On (some) Drugs.

There would be the some drug equivalent of the Budweiser delivery guy.

Your whole post was based on the premise that the War On (some) Drugs is right and proper. It's not your fault, we have grown up in that climate and know nothing different.

@ Frequent Tilde

Liberals love to wring their hands and have giant puppet protests in the streets for dirty people in romantic sounding far away lands they intend to vacation in some day, while their own fellow citizens right here rot in squalor and crime and are incarcerated because lord knows, dem brown people sure do be scarey whens theys aks for a quarter.

The question I asked was this: Can anyone here point to any federal level politicians of *either* party who are in favor of ending the War On (some) Drugs?

Your link did not speak to that question.

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

Americans have lived with some drug prohibition for so long that it seems normal and right to them. But alcohol Prohibition was begun and ended in a mere thirteen years, both times by a Constitutional Amendment, something quite difficult to do.

The reason alcohol Prohibition was ended so quickly? People could look out in their own neighborhoods and see that Prohibition made the problems associated with alcohol consumption *worse* not better.

As it was with alcohol, so is it with other drugs, prohibition makes the problems associated with those drugs worse. But we cannot see that since we have all grown up with prohibition being a normal, everyday part of life.

The fish does not notice the water in which he swims.

Liberals love to wring their hands and have giant puppet protests in the streets for dirty people in romantic sounding far away lands they intend to vacation in some day, while their own fellow citizens right here rot in squalor and crime and are incarcerated because lord knows, dem brown people sure do be scarey whens theys aks for a quarter.

Go f*ck off. You're describing yourself.

Cheers,

This is the first time I've taken a look at the comments section.....

Which might be a caution to you WRT jumping to conclusions.

... What the Hell is Bebop-o talking about. Can anyone decipher this gibberish?

Yes. And stick around a bit and maybe you might figger it out as well. He's got a lot to tell you if you just open your ears and listen a bit. Why don't you (politely) ask him if he can describe the smell of the pleasant bloom of crimson in a khaki field.

Cheers,

I suppose one could argue that child molestation is a non-violent crime. Highest recidivism rate of all.

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.

Holly McLachlan

Why? Because in the big scheme of things I'll stack my 2 million nonviolent long term incarcerated felons against your few hundred Iraqis any day of the week. That's why. Greater good, and like all that bunk.....?

-- (~~~~)

It is not easy to come out of the American prison system "non-violent".

Not everyone incarcerated for a non-violent crime is actually non-violent offender. They just got nailed doing the non-violent beef. Maybe drugs. Maybe burglaries. Do you want your home burgled?

The lowest recidivism rate/ highest number of model prisoners (non-violent) are the "crime of passion" one time murderers.

Well... It's not like he was saying they should sodomize them with a toilet plunger in a police station bathroom. Yeah, that liberal media makes everything sound so much worse...

... or aerate them with 42 bullet holes (some on the bottom of their shoes) to improve their circulation.

No. That would be unthinkable. And if it ever happened, I'm sure the appropriate action would be taken immediately....

Cheers,

And yet when I raise the issue I can rarely get any liberals to respond at all.

Nonsense. Plenty of liberals think the drug laws draconian, the criminal justice system flawed, and prison conditions appalling. And plenty do stuff about it (such as pushing for drug law and sentencing reform, "Project Innocence" and the abolition of the death penalty, and prison projects).

But you also miss a larger point: The outcry about torture isn't because these people are our huggable, lovable Terra-ists and regular criminals be damned. It's because the same laws apply for all: The justly and the unjustly accused (or suspected ... or just turned in by their neighbours because their cats sh*t in the neighbours' rose bushes). And furthermore: It's because torture isn't just about what it does to any (suspected/accused/rumoured) miscreants, it's about what it does to us!

Cheers,