• jabjoe@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    1 year ago

    The logic is deterrence.

    I mean it’s stupid, but that’s what the supporters think.

    The thing they are missing is that no one commits a crime thinking they will get caught. So ever increasing the deterrence doesn’t help.

    Drugs is a public health issue, no really criminal. Prohibition doesn’t work with things done at scales like drugs and alcohol. You’re just feeding the criminal gangs.

    • Wogi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The logic is subjugation. These laws are applied largely to a specific group of people, and even if they don’t spend life in prison, their ability to build a life for themselves afterwards is neutered, and they lost the right to vote.

    • Tehzbeef@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The logic is it also ruins other peoples lives. No one exists in society in a nut shell or as an island. If your choice to use drugs would expose, entice, or otherwise encourage a person to use drugs then it is reasonable in my opinion for the state to protect people from it.

      That being said clearly our approach isn’t working. There shouldn’t be laissez-faire drug use all over but there shouldn’t be life in prison immediately consequences either.

      The most succesful drug rehabilitation programs are mandatory rehab facilities that are a choice alternate to going to jail for an equal amount of time.

      Also housing first models are incredibly effective. But… the entire western world uses housing as an investment vehicle and commodity so it is diametrically opposed to housing first initiatives. If the average citizen is paying 50% of their income for housing and then “junkies” get given free housing the political party that implemented it would be booted so fast.